at all to investigate a possible claim against the landlord until
over three years after the accident, she had failed to undertake
the diligence required by s. 5(1)(b) of the Act.
 Relying on Fennell, Laskin J. noted that a plaintiff’s failure
to take reasonable steps to investigate a claim is not a stand-alone
or independent ground to find a claim out of time. Instead, the
reasonable steps a plaintiff ought to take is a relevant consideration in deciding when a claim is discoverable under s. 5(1)(b).
 In Galota, the motion judge had found that there were no
steps the plaintiff reasonably ought to have taken that would
have enabled her to discover her claim against Festival Hall,
a finding of fact that Laskin J. regarded as entitled to deference.
Laskin J. also noted that no one had alleged that any other party
was potentially liable, and Festival Hall’s potential liability as
owner and landlord was not obvious. Laskin J. relied on the following comments by Lauwers J. (as he then was) in Madrid v.
Ivanhoe Cambridge Inc.:10
If Ivanhoe’s insurance adjuster had advised the Plaintiff that liability was
being denied because another party was liable, then the Plaintiff’s duty to
make further inquiries would have been triggered. But, on the actual facts of
this case, a naked denial of liability should not trigger a duty on the Plaintiff
to make further inquiries.
 There was nothing that should have alerted the plaintiff to
the possibility of a claim against Festival Hall, and thus nothing
to trigger what Lauwers J. described [at para. 17] as the “
plaintiff’s duty to make further inquiries”. The claim was not discoverable more than two years prior to the commencement of the
action and was not barred by s. 4 of the Act.
 Also relevant to the role of due diligence under s. 5(1)(b) is
Pepper v. Zellers Inc.11 In Pepper, a pharmacist had mislabelled
medication, allegedly causing harm to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs brought an action for damages against the pharmacy and
its owners, but did not ask for the name of the dispensing pharmacist. More than two years after the incident, the plaintiffs were
informed of the name of the dispensing pharmacist and sought to
commence an action against her.
 The Court of Appeal noted that the obligation on a plaintiff to exercise reasonable diligence is a positive one, applying
both to the discoverability of facts and to the discoverability of
the tortfeasor’s identity. Lang J.A. noted that the plaintiffs had
10 (2010), 101 O.R. (3d) 553,  O.J. No. 1872, 2010 ONSC 2235 (S.C.J.),
at para. 17 (“Madrid”).
11 (2006), 83 O.R. (3d) 648,  O.J. No. 5042 (C.A.).