Furney v. Downie
Maryam Furney
Law Firm / Organization
Self Represented
Alex Furney
Law Firm / Organization
Self Represented
Estate of Mamlekat Adhami
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
2137073 Ontario Inc.
Arye Lankar
Law Firm / Organization
Atkinson Law
Lawyer(s)

Ryan J. Atkinson

Lina Balian
Law Firm / Organization
Atkinson Law
Lawyer(s)

Ryan J. Atkinson

Shawn Gabriel
Law Firm / Organization
Atkinson Law
Lawyer(s)

Ryan J. Atkinson

Elena Keimakh
Law Firm / Organization
Atkinson Law
Lawyer(s)

Ryan J. Atkinson

2380376 Ontario Limited
Law Firm / Organization
Maniaci Sobel Associates
Lawyer(s)

Jordan D. Sobel

Steve Hazan
Law Firm / Organization
Self Represented
Dominion Lending Centres Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Lawyer(s)

Sahil Kesar

Ian Minton
Law Firm / Organization
Self Represented
Mark Buslovich
Law Firm / Organization
Self Represented
Ryan Atkinson
Law Firm / Organization
Moodie Mair Walker Lawyers (MMW LLP)
Lawyer(s)

Bronwyn Martin

Atkinson Law
Law Firm / Organization
Moodie Mair Walker Lawyers (MMW LLP)
Lawyer(s)

Bronwyn Martin

Avi Freedland
Law Firm / Organization
Moodie Mair Walker Lawyers (MMW LLP)
Lawyer(s)

Bronwyn Martin

Jordan Sobel
Law Firm / Organization
Moodie Mair Walker Lawyers (MMW LLP)
Lawyer(s)

Bronwyn Martin

Maniaci Sobel Associates
Law Firm / Organization
Moodie Mair Walker Lawyers (MMW LLP)
Lawyer(s)

Bronwyn Martin

Samir Chhina
Law Firm / Organization
Moodie Mair Walker Lawyers (MMW LLP)
Lawyer(s)

Bronwyn Martin

Richard K. Watson
Law Firm / Organization
Moodie Mair Walker Lawyers (MMW LLP)
Lawyer(s)

Bronwyn Martin

Mary Panek
Law Firm / Organization
Self Represented
Emilio Bisceglia
Law Firm / Organization
Self Represented
Bisceglia and Associates

Key Points:

  • Background:

    • Maryam Furney, Alex Furney, and the Estate of Mamlekat Adhami sued multiple defendants, including Dominion Lending Centres Inc. (“DLC”), alleging mortgage fraud and syndicate fraud.
    • They sought damages and specific performance of a $7 million mortgage funding commitment.
  • Superior Court Ruling:

    • DLC brought a motion before Justice Centa to dismiss the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.
    • Justice Centa agreed and dismissed the case.
  • Appeal Proceedings:

    • The appellants filed a Notice of Appeal but failed to perfect it within the required time.
    • The Registrar issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss for Delay.
    • The appellants sought an extension, arguing their case had merit.
    • Justice Copeland dismissed the extension request, citing:
      • The claim was properly found frivolous and vexatious.
      • The appeal lacked merit.
      • There was no reasonable explanation for the delay.
      • Granting an extension would prejudice the respondents.
  • Court of Appeal Decision:

    • The appellants sought a panel review, arguing procedural unfairness.
    • The court upheld Justice Copeland’s ruling, agreeing that the case was properly dismissed.
    • Motion dismissed; DLC awarded $5,000 in costs.
Court of Appeal for Ontario
COA-24-CV-0562; M55473
Real estate
$ 5,000
Respondent