Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: October 15, 2018 Docket: C65326

Panel: Hoy A.C.J.O., Sharpe and Fairburn JJ.A.

Between

Russell Hawley Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

Thomas Granger and Gunn & Associates o/b Douglas George Gunn Professional Corporation Defendants (Respondents)

Counsel

Russell Hawley, acting in person

David B. Williams and M. Mana Khami, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: October 15, 2018

On appeal from: the judgment of Justice Russell M. Raikes of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 4, 2017, with reasons reported at 2017 ONSC 5927.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant appeals from the summary judgment dismissing his claim against the respondents, his former lawyer and law firm, on the basis that it was statute barred by s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002 c.24, schedule B.

[2] The appellant issued his statement of claim on March 2, 2016. The motion judge found that the appellant was aware as early as October 2013, and certainly no later than February 3, 2014, of the material facts giving rise to his claim against the respondents and that a proceeding against the respondents was an appropriate remedy. Indeed, the motion judge found that the appellant's own correspondence demonstrated his discovery of his claim.

[3] On appeal, the appellant argues that he did not discover his claim until March 27, 2014, at the earliest. He feels that the motion judge did not read all of the documents. He also argues that the evidence before the motion judge was insufficient because his former lawyer's affidavit stated that where the information therein was not from his direct knowledge, but based on information provided to him by others, he verily believed it to be true. He further argues that the summary judgment motion was defective because the respondents did not file separate affidavits and documents.

[4] We reject these arguments.

[5] The response of the Law Society, which the appellant adverted to in oral argument, added no material facts relative to his claim. The motion judge's finding as to when the appellant discovered his claim is amply supported by the record and there is no basis to interfere with it. Indeed, we agree with the motion judge that the appellant had full knowledge of the material facts giving rise to his claim no later than February 3, 2014. Further, the respondents were not required to file separate affidavits and documents.

[6] This appeal is accordingly dismissed. The respondents are entitled to costs of the appeal in the all-inclusive amount of $5,000.

"Alexandra Hoy A.C.J.O."

"Robert J. Sharpe J.A."

"Fairburn J.A."