Background
Alex Furney and Maryam Furney failed to complete a 2016 agreement to sell their home to Lisa He. He pursued damages in lieu of specific performance and obtained a $715,000 award from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
The Furneys appealed. At the hearing, Maryam Furney, who acted for herself, requested an adjournment based on alleged difficulty filing materials and her efforts to retain counsel. The court found no supporting evidence and noted that the appeal had been scheduled for more than five months. Alex Furney did not appear despite proper notice.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal denied the adjournment and dismissed the appeal. After more than ten years of litigation and repeated adjournment requests, the court concluded that justice required the appeal to proceed.
The court held that the appellants were attempting to reargue the trial rather than identify an appealable error. The trial judge had explained why he rejected their credibility on the material issues, and his credibility findings and factual determinations were entitled to appellate deference.
The court also rejected Maryam Furney’s abuse-of-process argument based on her not holding title to the property. Because she signed the agreement of purchase and sale as a consenting spouse under Ontario’s Family Law Act, she was bound by certain contractual obligations and was properly made a party. The appellants were ordered to pay Lisa He costs of $11,101.68.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal cannot succeed merely by asking the appellate court to reconsider the evidence and retry factual issues.
- Trial-level credibility and factual findings attract deference absent an identified reviewable error.
- A spouse who is not on title may still be a proper party when the spouse signed the purchase agreement as a consenting spouse and thereby assumed obligations under it.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the limited role of appellate courts in disputes turning on credibility and fact-finding. Parties must identify a reviewable error rather than simply repeat arguments rejected at trial.
It also confirms that a non-title-holding spouse’s role in a residential sale depends on the obligations undertaken in the agreement, not solely on registered ownership.