action”) against a number of defendants on May 5, 2011. In
November 2015, certain of the defendants in the main action
sought to commence claims for contribution and indemnity
against a home inspector who had some years previously conducted an inspection of the property. The home inspector argues
that the claims for contribution and indemnity were commenced
more than two years after the service of the statement of claim in
the main action, and are therefore barred by the Act.
 In my view, the principle of discoverability applies to claims
for contribution and indemnity under the Act. Thus, an alleged
wrongdoer, who seeks to commence a third party claim more than
two years after they have been served with a statement of claim,
is entitled to rely on the fact that they only discovered their claim
less than two years previously. In this case, the defendants in the
main action were not aware of the identity of the home inspector
until the fall of 2015, and they commenced their claims for contribution and indemnity promptly thereafter.
 In addition to showing that they did not actually discover
their claim more than two years previously, plaintiffs under the
Act must also show that they could not have discovered their
claim with the exercise of due diligence. The defendants in the
main action learned in December 2011 that there had been an
earlier home inspection done on the property. However, for close
to four years they made no efforts of any kind to ascertain the
identity of the home inspector. The identity of the home inspector
was discoverable since a former owner of the property, who was
also a defendant in the main action, still had a copy of the home
inspector’s report. Moreover, the defendants in the main action
were themselves experienced in the home inspection and/or residential real estate business in Whitby, Ontario and should reasonably have been able to take some steps to ascertain the
identity of the home inspector.
 In my view, persons with the abilities and in the circumstances of the defendants in the main action ought to have discovered their claim against the home inspector more than two
years prior to the commencement of their claims for contribution
and indemnity. Accordingly, the claims against the home inspector are dismissed with costs.
 In June 2009, Ian and Sandra McIntosh (the “main action
plaintiffs”) discovered an underground storage tank (“UST”)
on their residential property municipally known as [number
omitted] Wellington Street, Whitby, Ontario (the “property”).
On May 5, 2011, they commenced an action seeking damages