appellants first discovered that Dr. Murphy and Ms. Boulanger
were working with two differential diagnoses, one of which
 Similarly, at her examination for discovery, Ms. Edwards
testified that she never told Mr. Morrison that she was considering the possibility that he had sustained a serious or significant
nerve injury in the spine, and she did not record these observations in her notes.
 In my view, the record before us is sufficient to conclude
that the appellants did not have actual knowledge of the elements
of their claims against the respondents until they learned, during
the examinations for discovery, that all three respondents had
suspected spinal injury at the time of treatment.
( ii) Section 5(1)(b): When a reasonable person ought to
have known of the claim against the respondents
 The key question in this case remains, then, on what day
“a reasonable person with the abilities and in the circumstances
of the person with the claim first ought to have known of the
matters referred to in clause (a)”. Unfortunately, this question
was never directly answered by the motion judge.
 Instead, the motion judge stated, at para. 40, that the
pleadings “do not discernibly relate or rely upon facts the plaintiffs say they discovered at Ms. Edwards’ and Dr. Murphy’s discoveries”. Rather, the pleadings rely only on the defendants’
identities, their medical qualifications, and the fact they treated
Mr. Morrison for his back complaints.
 The motion judge also asserted, at para. 40, that “[t]he
allegations of negligence are virtually identical against all of the
parties” and that “[t]here is little evidence of the plaintiffs proactively taking any steps to discover any claims against these proposed defendants”.
 This analysis unfortunately overlooks the important difference between the claims against the respondents and the claim
against Dr. Barzo, as I have outlined above.
 And while due diligence is relevant to when a reasonable
person ought to have discovered a claim — demonstrating due
diligence as well as no actual knowledge of all elements of the
claim can certainly provide strong evidence that a reasonable person could not have discovered the claim sooner — the absence
of due diligence does not necessarily establish that the two-year
period has run out.
 Instead, the motion judge was required, after clearly defining the nature of the claims against the respondents on the
evidence, and after finding no actual knowledge of the claims,