failed to address whether they ought to have known of the dispensing pharmacist’s identity and what, if any, steps they took to
determine that identity. Lang J.A. indicated that the solicitor for
the plaintiff would normally be expected to file an affidavit setting out particulars of any steps taken to obtain information
and/or an explanation as to why no steps were taken. Because
there was no “reasonable explanation” on the evidence demonstrating why the dispensing pharmacist’s identity could not have
been determined through the exercise of reasonable diligence, the
claim was out of time.
 Applying this analysis to the facts in the present proceedings, I note that the defendants in the main action were put on
notice through the defence filed by Wai-Ping in December 2011 of
the fact that a previous home inspection had been undertaken on
the property and that this inspection had not disclosed the existence of a UST. For almost the next four years, they did not make
any inquiries and made no attempt to ascertain the identity of
the home inspector.
 For example, during the examination for discovery of Wai-Ping on October 24, 2013, counsel for the main action plaintiffs
questioned Wai-Ping regarding the previous home inspection. But
neither counsel for the Murphy defendants nor the Amerispec
defendants asked anything about the previous home inspection.
The Murphy defendants and the Amerispec defendants only
learned of the identity of the Hart defendants when the February
1995 inspection report on the property was delivered to them,
unsolicited, in October 2015.
 The Murphy defendants and the Amerispec defendants
argue that it was impossible for them to have discovered the identity of the Hart defendants earlier because, during his examination for discovery, Wai-Ping stated that he did not recall the
identity of the inspector, nor did he have a copy of the inspection
report. But this is a mere assertion on the part of the Murphy
defendants and the Amerispec defendants, unsupported by any
evidence on the record indicating what steps they took, or might
have taken, to identify the Hart defendants.
 I note that although Wai-Ping claimed during his examination for discovery that he did not have a copy of the 1995 home
inspection report, he was mistaken. In fact, he did have a copy of
the report at his mother’s home. No one asked him whether
he had searched for the document or whether it was possible that
he might still have a copy. Had Wai-Ping been asked to undertake
an appropriate search, it is reasonable to believe that he could
have found it.