In Velgakis v. Servinis, the Court of Appeal conveniently reduced the s. 5(1)(a)(iv) discovery principles in Presidential to two points:
[6] In Presidential MSH, at paras. 17-20, this court clarified certain principles governing cases such as the one before us on the issue of discoverability:
1. A legal proceeding against an expert professional may not be appropriate if the claim arose out of the professional’s alleged wrongdoing but may be resolved by the professional himself or herself without recourse to the courts, rendering the proceeding unnecessary.
2. The defendant’s ameliorative efforts and the plaintiff’s reasonable reliance on such efforts to remedy its loss are what may render the proceeding premature. The plaintiff and defendant must have engaged in good faith efforts to right the wrong it caused.
Furthering the interested of brevity, in Tracy v. Iran (Information and Security), the Court reduced the purpose of that provision to a sentence 2017 ONCA 549:
[79] The purpose of the appropriateness criterion in s. 5(1)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002 is to deter needless litigation: Presidential MSH Corp. v. Marr, Foster & Co. LLP, 2017 ONCA 325 (CanLII), at para. 17. Given that a stay of the respondents’ proceedings on the U.S. judgments would be inevitable if they were brought at common law, it would have been fruitless to commence them before 2012 when the JVTA and SIA carved out an exception to Iran’s immunity. They were therefore not appropriate or discoverable before 2012.