Law360 Canada ( October 5, 2022, 6:03 AM EDT) -- Appeal by the appellants from the motion judge’s dismissal of the application for summary judgment on grounds that the motion judge erred in law. Respondents entered into a Letter of Commitment (LOC) with Toyota Canada Inc. (Toyota) to build and operate a Lexus dealership in downtown Toronto. Toyota terminated the LOC after the respondents failed to meet certain deadlines set out in the agreement. The respondents commenced an action against Toyota, alleging that the termination was unlawful. They were unsuccessful. The trial judge found that although Toyota acted unreasonably in terminating the agreement, an exclusion of liability clause shielded Toyota from liability to pay damages. Following the dismissal of the leave application, the respondents commenced an action in negligence against the appellants (former counsel) for failing to provide competent advice concerning the enforceability of the exclusion of liability clause. The appellants moved for summary judgment. They claimed that the respondents’ claims were discoverable before the Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal, and within the two-year limitation period. In dismissing the summary judgment motion, the motion judge found there was no genuine issue for trial on the limitations defence. Appellants alleged there were earlier points in time when the respondents would have been aware of the material facts necessary to ground their claim. The respondents claimed they did not have knowledge of the material facts until the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal, and after they sought a legal opinion from their new counsel....