Ferrara et al. v. Lorenzetti, Wolfe Barristers and Solicitors et al.,

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Laskin, Sharpe and Epstein, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2012 ONCA 851
• Citation: (2012), 299 O.A.C. 151 (CA),2012 ONCA 851,113 OR (3d) 401,[2012] OJ No 5683 (QL),299 OAC 151,299 O.A.C. 151,(2012), 299 OAC 151 (CA),[2012] O.J. No 5683 (QL),113 O.R. (3d) 401
• Date: 06 June 2012
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)

Ferrara v. Lorenzetti, Wolfe (2012), 299 O.A.C. 151 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] O.A.C. TBEd. DE.023

Antonio Ferrara, Cesan Mechanical Limited and 973976 Ontario Limited (plaintiffs/appellants) v. Lorenzetti, Wolfe Barristers and Solicitors, and Stephen A. Schwartz (respondents/respondents)

(C54978; 2012 ONCA 851)

Indexed As: Ferrara et al. v. Lorenzetti, Wolfe Barristers and Solicitors et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Laskin, Sharpe and Epstein, JJ.A.

December 4, 2012.

Summary:

The plaintiff (Ferrara) commenced a negligence action against his former solicitor in a real estate matter. The solicitor and his firm moved to have the action dismissed as being statute barred.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 151, dismissed the action as being out of time. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Epstein, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2508

Negligence - General principles - Limitation period for actions against lawyers - After a settlement had been reached respecting an aborted real estate transaction, the vendor alleged a mistake in the statement of adjustments respecting a roll over credit - On September 19, 2006, the vendor sued the purchaser and its own solicitors (deficiency action) - The purchaser retained litigation counsel and defended on the basis that there was no mistake - On July 2, 2009, the trial judge found in the vendor's favour in the deficiency action - On June 28, 2011, the purchaser sued his own solicitor in negligence - The limitation period became an issue - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the action was not statute barred - The purchaser did not know that he had a claim against his solicitor until July 2, 2009 - Here, the purchaser's long time solicitor offered repeated assurances that he was right and had made no mistake in the statement of adjustments - No one told the purchaser otherwise - Further, there was no abuse of process - See paragraphs 62 to 87.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2912

Negligence - Defences - Abuse of process - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2508 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 15

General principles - Discoverability rule - Application of - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2508 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9305

Postponement or suspension of statute - General - Discoverability rule - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2508 ].

Cases Noticed:

Kenderry - Esprit v. Burgess, MacDonald, Martin & Younger et al., [2001] O.T.C. 147; 53 O.R.(3d) 208 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 21, 71].

Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. et al. v. Flesch et al. (2011), 286 O.A.C. 3; 103 O.R.(3d) 1; 2011 ONCA 764, refd to. [para. 28].

Tim's Meat, Deli & Grocer Inc. et al. v. Dubinsky, [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 3829; 2010 ONSC 3829, refd to. [para. 29].

Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse and Cordon, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147; 69 N.R. 321; 75 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 186 A.P.R. 109, refd to. [para. 32].

Indcondo Building Corp. v. Steeles-Jane Properties Inc. et al., [2001] O.T.C. Uned. 854; 14 C.P.C.(5th) 117 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 37].

Transamerica Life Insurance Co. of Canada v. Canada Life Assurance Co. et al. (1996), 2 O.T.C. 146; 28 O.R.(3d) 423 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 49].

1061590 Ontario Ltd. v. Ontario Jockey Club et al. (1995), 77 O.A.C. 196; 21 O.R.(3d) 547 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Dawson et al. v. Rexcraft Storage and Warehouse Inc. et al. (1998), 111 O.A.C. 201; 164 D.L.R.(4th) 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Toronto (City) et al. v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291; 2003 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 55].

Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles et al. (2000), 139 O.A.C. 1; 51 O.R.(3d) 481 (C.A.), affd. [2002] 3 S.C.R. 307; 296 N.R. 257; 167 O.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 57].

Sheeraz et al. v. Kayani et al., [2009] O.T.C. Uned. L67 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 73].

Charette v. Trinity Capital Corp. et al., [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 2824; 2012 ONSC 2823, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Youvarajah (Y.) (2011), 284 O.A.C. 300; 107 O.R. (3d) 401; 2011 ONCA 654, refd to. [para. 78].

Counsel:

Ronald Birken, for the appellants;

Michael R. Kestenberg and Aaron Hershtal, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on June 6, 2012, before Laskin, Sharpe and Epstein, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered on December 4, 2012, including the following opinions:

Epstein, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 1 to 61;

Laskin, J.A. (Sharpe, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 62 to 87.