Where an insured suffers a loss caused by an act or omission of an insurer (such as the failure to pay benefits), the insured
must advise the insurer of the loss and seek indemnification.
 Thereafter, there must be a determination as to whether
the insured knew or ought to have known they had a claim and
that it would be appropriate to commence an action to seek
a remedy. The court must look at the evidence in the particular
case (Gillham v. Lake of Bays (Township),  O.J. No. 3982,
2018 ONCA 667, 294 A.C. W.S. (3d) 739, at para. 38).
 It is an error, to equate knowledge that a loss was occasioned with a conclusion that a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek a remedy from the insurer for the loss
(Presidential, at para. 49).
B. The meaning of “appropriate means” in s. 5(1)(a)( iv) of
the Limitations Act, 2002
 In assessing when it is legally “appropriate” to bring a pro-
ceeding within the meaning of s. 5(1)(a)( iv) of the Limitations
Act, 2002, the courts have articulated the following guidelines:
(a) The determination of whether legal action is “legally appro-
priate” takes into account what a reasonable person with the
abilities and in the circumstances of the plaintiff ought to
have known: Presidential, at para. 18.
(b) Parties should be discouraged from rushing to litigation or
arbitration. Rather, they should be encouraged to resolve
claims as courts take a dim view of unnecessary litigation:
Markel Insurance Co. of Canada v. ING Insurance Co. of
Canada (2018), 109 O.R. (3d) 652,  O.J. No. 1505, 2012
ONCA 218, at para. 34; and 407 ETR, at para. 48.
(c) It is premature for a party to bring a court proceeding to seek
a remedy if a statutory dispute resolution process offers an
adequate alternative remedy and that process has not fully
run its course or been exhaustive: Volochay v. College of Massage Therapists of Ontario (2012), 111 O.R. (3d) 561, 
O.J. No. 3871, 2012 ONCA 541, at paras. 61-70.
(d) However, where the insurer has been clear that it intends to
rely on the limitation period, and the claim has “ripened”,
the court should be wary of getting involved in assessing the
“tone and tenor of communications” to determine where and
when there was a denial of the claim by the insurer as this
would inject an undesirable element of uncertainty into the
law of limitation of actions: Markel, at para. 34.