What is the current state of the law of limitations on discoverability rules in a personal injury action?

In Novak v. Bond, 1999 CanLII 685 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 808 (S.C.C.), McLachlin J. (as she then was) noted that discoverability rules of this kind are the product of a long-term trend in the law of limitations towards an approach that balances the interests of both plaintiffs and defendants. The traditional rationales for the imposition of a limitation period on actions were centred on the interests of the defendant: a) the need for certainty concerning legal rights and obligations; b) the need to minimize the risk that evidence necessary to defend against a claim would deteriorate over time; and c) a concern for ensuring that defendants not be required to defend themselves against stale claims because a plaintiff has failed to act diligently (para. 64). Over time, however, courts, law reform commissions and legislatures came to realize that this approach was one-sided and that a "more contextual view of the parties' actual circumstances" was required (para. 65). Accordingly, at para. 66, McLachlin J. wrote: Contemporary limitations statutes thus seek to balance conventional rationales oriented towards the protection of the defendant - certainty, evidentiary, and diligence - with the need to treat plaintiffs fairly, having regard to their specific circumstances. As Major J. put it in [Murphy v. Welsh, 1993 CanLII 59 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1069], "[a] limitations scheme must attempt to balance the interests of both sides" (p. 1080).