In Duchesne v. St. Denis, 2012 ONCA 699, the Court of Appeal held that a claim is discoverable when the facts necessary for the claim are known; the legal effect of those facts is not a condition precedent to discovering the claim. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the absence of clear legal advice as to the identity of a particular proposed defendant is not sufficient to delay the running of the limitation period. It is enough to have prima facie grounds to infer that the acts or omissions were caused by the party or parties identified. The Court stated as follows:
Both the Master and the Divisional Court erred in their interpretation of previous decisions of this court relative to whether knowledge of legal consequences that flow from known facts is required in order for actual knowledge to exist. Such knowledge may assist in the acquisition of actual knowledge of a claim, but it is not a requirement. The appellant here could have had actual knowledge without having had the benefit of the legal analysis that might have identified for him the potential liability of various potential defendants.