The «discoverability» test provides that a cause of action arises, for purposes of the limitation period, when the material facts on which it is based have been discovered or ought to have been discovered by the plaintiff with the exercise of reasonable diligence. (mccagueborlack.com)
The Court found that the plaintiff had «pleaded all of the particulars available to [them] with the exercise of reasonable diligence». (gilbertsondavis.com)
In confirming the decision of the Motions Judge, the Court of Appeal described the test from Sagaz as a dual inquiry as to whether the new evidence, if presented at trial, would probably have changed the result, and whether the evidence could have been obtained before trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence. (supremeadvocacy.ca)