(e) The courts should also be wary of allowing a party to delay
the commencement of proceedings simply for tactical reasons:
407 ETR, at para. 47; and Markel, at para. 34.
(f) It is appropriate for the court to consider what was communicated to the insured and whether the claim was clearly and
unequivocally denied: Kassburg v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of
Canada (2014), 124 O.R. (3d) 171,  O.J. No. 6222, 2014
ONCA 922, at para. 42.
(g) The courts have specifically recognized two circumstances in
which the issue of “appropriate means” may delay the date
on which a claim was discovered:
— first, where the insured relies on the superior
knowledge and expertise of the insurer, especially
where the insurer made efforts to ameliorate the loss;
— second, where other proceedings remain ongoing (such
as criminal proceedings or arbitration): Presidential, at
(h) Where an insured seeks to preclude an insurer from relying
on a limitations defence on the basis of promissory estoppel,
the insurer’s conduct must amount to a promise on which
the insured acted to its detriment: Maracle v. Travellers
Indemnity Co. of Canada,  2 S.C.R. 50,  S.C.J.
No. 43; and Marchischuk v. Dominion Industrial Supplies
Ltd.,  2 S.C.R. 61,  S.C.J. No. 44.
C. Key cases cited by the parties
 In Markel, the issue was which of two insurance companies was responsible for the loss. In that case, a legally valid claim
was asserted by the first party insurer, who was seeking indemnification, and the second party insurer was under a legal obligation to indemnify the first party insurer for the loss. The
situation had crystallized into a valid legal claim that was immediately enforceable against the second party insurer. The court
and the parties had all the information they needed to determine
when the second insurer’s obligation to indemnify arose and was
 In Markel, unlike the case before us, there was no reason
to defer the initiation of a claim because all of the material facts
were known. Thus, there was no basis to conclude that an action
was not appropriate.
 The decision in Pepper v. Sanmina-Sci Systems (Canada)
Inc.,  O.J. No. 4870, 2017 ONCA 730, 283 A.C.W.S. (3d) 405