Source: http://isthatlegal.ca/index.php?name=416-case-law
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:19:33+00:00

Document:
• Section 5(1)(b) codifies the common law rule of discoverability. If s. 5(1)(b) applies, the two year limitation period will run from a date later than the date the plaintiff was injured.
• Under s. 5(1)(b), a plaintiff “first ought to have known” of the claim when the plaintiff has enough evidence or information to support an allegation of negligence, including facts about an act or omission that may give rise to a cause of action against a possible tortfeasor: Zapfe v. Barns (2003), 2003 CanLII 52159 (ON CA), 66 O.R. (3d) 397 (C.A.), at paras. 32-33; Burtch v. Barnes Estate (2006), 2006 CanLII 12955 (ON CA), 80 O.R. (3d) 365, at para. 24. The plaintiff cannot delay the start of the limitation period until he or she knows with certainty that a defendant’s act or omission caused the injury or damage: Longo v. MacLaren Art Centre Inc., 2014 ONCA 526 (CanLII), 323 O.A.C. 246, at para. 44.
• The rebuttable presumption in s. 5(2) means that a plaintiff has the onus of showing that the rule of discoverability in s. 5(1)(b) applies: Fennell v. Deol, 2016 ONCA 249 (CanLII), at para. 26.
 Festival Hall accepts that the motion judge correctly stated the test for determining when Ms. Galota’s claim against Festival Hall was discoverable under s. 5(1)(b). It challenges his application of the test. Its simple submission is that the motion judge erred by finding Ms. Galota showed “no want of diligence” because she did nothing to investigate a claim against Festival Hall for at least three and half years after she was injured.
 Festival Hall points out that in several cases this court has held that a plaintiff relying on s. 5(1)(b) has a positive duty to exercise reasonable diligence in investigating a claim of negligence against a defendant. That duty cannot be met, Festival Hall contends, when a plaintiff takes no steps at all. Had Ms. Galota acted with reasonable diligence she would have discovered her claim against Festival Hall well before November 2009. See, for example: Zapfe; Soper v. Southcott, 1998 CanLII 5359 (ON CA),  O.J. No. 2799 (C.A.); and Pepper v. Zellers Inc. (c.o.b. Zellers Pharmacy), 2006 CanLII 42355 (ON CA),  O.J. No. 5042 (C.A.).
I agree with the plaintiff that it would be inappropriate to name landlords as defendants in every case of an occupier’s liability claim against a tenant. On the other hand, to satisfy the third branch of the test under s. 5(1)(a), for the purposes of s. 5(1)(b) of the Limitations Act, the plaintiff must investigate on a reasonable basis with a view to determining the proper defendants to the claim. In this case, this would mean identifying the condition of the elevated dance floor as a basis for alleged liability and the persons apparently responsible for it. This requires a plaintiff to make reasonable investigation of her claim. It does not, however, require a pre-discovery discovery of an adverse party.
 While due diligence is a factor that informs the analysis of when a claim ought to have reasonably been discovered, lack of due diligence is not a separate and independent reason for dismissing a plaintiff’s claim as statute-barred.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.