Update: The Supreme Court denied leave to appeal.
In Dale v. Frank, the Court of Appeal reiterated that discovery of a claim doesn’t require knowledge that the defendant’s act or omission was culpable. To require a plaintiff to know with certainty that the defendant’s wrongful conduct caused her injuries would require her to come to a legal conclusion as to the defendant’s liability. This is too a high a bar, and not what s. 5(1) of the Limitations Act requires.
The Appellants also argued that the motion judge erred by failing to consider s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act in her analysis. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument. The reasons permitted the inference that the motion judge considered this discovery matter:
 We are not persuaded by this submission. Although the motion judge did not undertake a distinct analysis under this provision, her conclusion that each of the appellants knew or ought to have known of the other elements in s. 5(1)(a) was sufficient to infer that she also concluded that the appellants knew or ought to have known that a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek a remedy for their losses even before the 2011 press release about Dr. Frank.
Unfortunately, in making this point the Court quoted its decision in Lawless for the principle that discovery requires the prospective plaintiff to know the material facts necessary to make a claim. Knowledge of the material facts of the claim does not include knowledge of the matter in s. 5(1)(a)(iv)—that a claim is an appropriate remedy to the loss. It’s disappointing to see the Court of Appeal continuing to rely on Lawless, given the mischief it causes.