Johnson v. Studley, 2014 ONSC 1732
In Johnson v. Studley, the Ontario Superior Court considered two related summary judgment motions brought by the defendants, John Studley (“Studley”) and Armstrong & Quaile Associates (“Armstrong”) which sought to dismiss two related actions as statue-barred.
The plaintiffs were clients of Studley. In 2001, they borrowed $150,000 and invested the monies in Olympus United Corp. (“Olympus”). They commenced a claim in January 2013 and argued that they only discovered that they had a potential claim when they learned that Studley no longer acted for them and had been sued by other Olympus investors. Perell J. found that a limitation period starts where a plaintiff learns that they have suffered from mistaken advice, as opposed to when a plaintiff learns of the likely success of a claim. Accordingly, the summary judgment motions were granted and both actions were dismissed as statue-barred.