He v. Furney, 2026 ONCA 541

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: He v. Furney, 2026 ONCA 541 Date: 2026-07-22 Docket: COA-25-CV-0038

Judges: Fairburn A.C.J.O., Sossin and Osborne JJ.A.

Between:

Lisa He Plaintiff (Respondent)

and

Alex Furney and Maryam Furney Defendants (Appellants)

Counsel: Maryam Furney, acting in person No one appearing for the appellant, Alex Furney Anna Wong, for the respondent

Heard and rendered orally: July 17, 2026

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Colin P. Stevenson of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 11, 2024.

Reasons for Decision

1The appellants failed to complete the sale of their home in 2016. This matter has been mired in litigation since that time. The respondent pursued damages in lieu of specific performance and was granted $715,000. This is an appeal from that decision.

2At the outset of the appeal, which has been scheduled for over five months, Ms. Furney asked for an adjournment. That request was denied. While Ms. Furney says that she has had trouble filing materials with this court, there is no evidence of this at the court nor have any additional materials been provided to us today.

3Ms. Furney also claims that she is in the process of retaining a lawyer. We have no evidence of this, and in the event, Ms. Furney has had enough time to do so.

4The appellant Mr. Furney, despite having proper notice of the hearing, has not even appeared today. There is no reason to adjourn this appeal. There is every reason to go ahead. The reported decisions relating to this matter are legion. Requests for adjournments have been repeatedly made. Over 10 years following the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (“APS”), justice demands that this matter be heard.

5There is no merit to this appeal. The appellants’ position comes down to a request to re-argue the trial. That is not the function of this court. The trial judge explained in his detailed reasons why he rejected the appellants’ credibility on essentially all salient points. We see no error in his approach and his reasons on credibility and fact-finding are owed deference.

6As for Ms. Furney’s contention that there has been an abuse of process because she was not on title to the property, there is no merit to this argument. Ms. Furney signed the APS as a consenting spouse under the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, and was therefore bound to certain obligations under the APS, which made her a proper party to this matter.

7The appeal is dismissed. Costs in the amount of $11,101.68 will be paid by the appellants to the respondent.