What is the discoverability of the circumstances in which the claimant ought to have known?

While Bradner also addresses the restrictive subjective/objective approach to be taken in determining discoverability of ‘the circumstances’ in which the claimant ‘ought to have known’, under s. 3(1)(2) of the Act, I find that does not assist in determining the decision in the case at Bar for several reasons: most of the knowledge of the injury in this case (as opposed to its causes) was direct – that is, it was known, and did not need to be discovered; complete knowledge or discoverability of knowledge of all the causes of the injury , or the cause of action, are not the focus – it is only knowledge of the injury that is important; the focus, in any event, is when bringing the claim is reasonably possible (in terms of knowledge), not ideal; and no claimant is under any physical or mental disability here. See also Novak v. Bond, 1999 CanLII 685 (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR 808.