Law360 Canada ( October 21, 2026, 11:38 AM EDT) -- Appeals by the appellants from the orders granting the respondents summary judgment and dismissing their product-liability actions as statute-barred under the Limitations Act (Act). Each appellant received hernia-repair mesh, developed complications and underwent revision surgery ending in its removal. Each action was commenced over three years after the final revision surgery. None promptly investigated a possible claim. The respondents sought summary judgment, submitting that the actions were commenced outside the two-year limitation period. The motion judge found that, within months of their final revision surgeries, the appellants knew or ought to have known all material facts needed to sue. They suffered injuries associated with the mesh, the mesh required removal and medical records would disclose the manufacturer’s identity. He rejected their position that the claims were undiscoverable until they consulted counsel, learned the manufacturer’s identity and were advised that the products appeared on counsel’s list of allegedly defective devices for which litigation had a reasonable prospect of success. On appeal, the appellants maintained that counsel’s advice supplied necessary information about a possible defect. They submitted that the motion judge failed to apply each element of s. 5(1)(a) of the Act, treated the mesh complications and removal as triggering the limitation period, overemphasized due diligence and failed to determine precisely when each claim was discovered. The issue was whether the motion judge erred in finding that the limitation periods expired before the actions were commenced....