What is the limitation period for an action under s. 6(4)?

In Vance v. Peglar, Lambert J.A. usefully broke the text of s. 6(4) down into three components; there is a fourth component which was not relevant in Vance v. Peglar. The four components can be paraphrased within the context of the present circumstances as follows: 1. The identity of the defendant is known to the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff has certain facts (including the facts set out in s. 6(5)(b)) within her means of knowledge. 3. A reasonable person, knowing those facts and having taken the appropriate advice a reasonable person would seek on those facts, would regard the facts as showing that an action would have a reasonable prospect of success. 4. A reasonable person, knowing those facts and having taken the appropriate advice a reasonable person would seek on those facts, would regard the facts as showing that the plaintiff ought, in her own interests and taking her circumstances into account, to be able to bring an action. All four of these components must be satisfied before the running of time with respect to the limitation period begins running. Thus, if a plaintiff is able to demonstrate that any one of the four components had not been satisfied before two years prior to the commencement of the action (in the case of a two year limitation period), the action will not be statute barred. In this case, the action was commenced on May 13, 1998, with the result that May 13, 1996 is the relevant date by which the four components must have been satisfied for the limitation period to have expired prior to the commencement of the action.