The Superior Court decision in Zenner v. Hermanns reminds us that patience will not delay discovery of a claim:
[40] Zenner’s explanation that he was a “patient” person is not an adequate, or appropriate, response. Patience may well be a virtue, but patience does not override limitation laws and cannot be used as an excuse for not taking steps to pursue one’s rights. As stated in Longo v. MacLaren Art Centre, 2014 ONCA 526 at para. 42:
A plaintiff is required to act with due diligence in determining if he has a claim. A limitation period will not be tolled while a plaintiff sits idle and takes no steps to investigate the matters referred to in s. 5(1)(a). While some action must be taken, the nature and extent of the required action will depend on all of the circumstances of the case, as this court noted in Soper v. Southcott (1998), 1998 CanLII 5359 (ON CA), 111 O.A.C. 339, at p. 345 (C.A.):
Limitation periods are not enacted to be ignored. The plaintiff is required to act with due diligence in acquiring facts in order to be fully apprised of the material facts upon which a negligence or malpractice claim can be based….
