Court File and Parties

CITATION: Sellathurai v. Sriskanda, 2008 ONCA 392

DATE: 20080516

DOCKET: C47497

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DOHERTY, MOLDAVER and CRONK JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

SIVAPALALINGAM SELLATHURAI, SAROJADEVI SIVAPALALINGAM and 1436584 ONTARIO INC.

Appellants

and

KUMAR S. SRISKANDA, SRINDRAN SINNADURAI and PREMAWATHY DASENDRAN

Respondents

Counsel:

Conor D. O’Hare for the appellants

Heather Mitchell for the respondent, Sinnadurai No one appearing for the respondent, Sriskanda Keith Lee-Whiting for the respondent, Dasendran

Heard: May 14, 2008

On appeal from the judgment of Justice William P. Somers of the Superior Court of Justice dated July 6, 2007.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The motion judge granted summary judgment on three grounds. Counsel for the appellant, in his excellent arguments, acknowledged that if we sustain the motion judge on any one of the three, his appeal must fail.

[2] We agree with the motion judge’s finding that the action was statute barred. The appellant’s lawyer on the land transaction was fixed with knowledge that should reasonably have led to discovery of the zoning problem in August 2000. There is no evidentiary basis on this record to displace the presumption that the solicitor’s knowledge should be imputed to the appellant client. We need not decide whether the result would be different if there was evidence that the solicitor deliberately kept the information from the appellant client.

[3] We need not consider the other two issues decided by the motion judge.

[4] The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent, Dasendran, in the amount of $7,500, inclusive of disbursements and GST. Costs to the respondent, Sinnadurai, in the amount of $5,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.