Court File and Parties
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
MacPherson, Cronk and Karakatsanis JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
Amelia Zwaigenbaum
Plaintiff (Appellant in appeal)
and
Hugh Scher
Defendant (Respondent in appeal)
Counsel:
Amelia Zwaigenbaum, in person
Richard W. Greene and Michael Zalev, for the respondent
Heard and endorsed orally: July 8, 2010
On appeal from the order of Justice Romain Pitt of the Superior Court of Justice, dated January 25, 2010.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1]
Background
The appellant appeals from the order of Pitt J. dated January 25, 2010, granting summary judgment to the respondent and dismissing the action on the basis that it was brought after expiry of the applicable limitation period. The action claimed damages for negligence against a lawyer who acted for the appellant in an unsuccessful appeal of a family law matter.
2The motion judge found that, based upon her affidavit and her communications to her lawyer during the retainer, it was clear that the appellant had subjective knowledge of the majority of the material facts upon which her claims were based before she terminated her lawyer’s retainer in November 2006, almost 26 months before she commenced this action on January 5, 2009.
[3]
Analysis
The appellant submits the motion judge erred in failing to consider the significance of the results of the LSUC investigation. She submits that she did not know that her lawyer had broken any rules until she received the results of the investigation and, further, that the report disclosed information and correspondence concerning the respondent’s conduct of which she had previously been unaware.
4The record does not support this contention. While the appellant may have learned some further details concerning her complaints, the record includes two letters written in May 2006 to the respondent detailing the appellant’s complaints against him and her concerns regarding his representation of her. No material facts relating to these matters, or to the claims ultimately advanced in the appellant’s pleading, emerged in the LSUC report.
[5]
Disposition
For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no costs of the appeal.