COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Tulloch C.J.O., Roberts and George JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Maryam Furney and Aidan Alex Fitzgerald Furney
Appellants/Plaintiffs
and
Robins Appleby LLP, Irving Marks, Ellad Gersh, Jonathan Preece, and Joey Jamil
Respondents/Defendants
Maryam Furney, acting in person
Michael R. Kestenberg and Aaron Hershtal, for the respondents
Heard: October 3, 2025
On appeal from the order of Justice Lisa Brownstone of the Superior Court of Justice, dated February 3, 2025, with reasons reported at 2025 ONSC 740.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
1The appellants commenced proceedings in March 2023 against their former legal counsel, the respondents, alleging professional negligence and breach of duty in relation to litigation and appeals arising from a dispute concerning a residential property.
2The respondents brought a motion for summary judgment, submitting that the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sch. B. The motion judge agreed, finding that the appellants knew or ought to have known of the material facts supporting a potential claim by no later than March 2019, when they expressly threatened to pursue negligence proceedings. The motion judge dismissed the action because it was commenced nearly four years later, well outside the two-year limitation period.
Issues on Appeal
3The appellants contend that:
The motion judge erred in finding that the claim was statute-barred; and
The motion judge failed to consider the respondents’ alleged misconduct in the handling of the litigation.
Analysis
4We are not persuaded by the appellants’ submissions. The limitation period analysis undertaken by the motion judge was firmly grounded in the evidentiary record and consistent with the requirements of ss. 4 and 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002.
5The appellants were aware of the respondents’ role and the alleged deficiencies in their representation no later than early 2018, and they confirmed such awareness through correspondence in 2019 when they threatened legal action. The limitation period, therefore, began to run at the latest in March 2019. Commencing the claim in March 2023 fell well outside the two-year period.
6The appellants have identified no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact warranting appellate intervention. Their arguments largely repeat allegations already addressed by the motion judge.
Conclusion
7The appeal is without merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
8The respondents are entitled to their costs of the appeal, fixed in the amount of $20,000, all-inclusive.
“M. Tulloch C.J.O.”
“L.B. Roberts J.A.”
“J. George J.A.”