In Sora et al. v. Emerson Electrical Co. et al., the court reminds us that entitlement to misnomer relief doesn’t require establishing, as is sometimes argued, that the plaintiff intended to name the correct party and that the correct party knew subjectively that it was the intended defendant:
 The plaintiffs issued their statement of claim before the expiry of the limitation period. The pseudonyms used, “John Doe Retailer” and “John Doe Installer” pointed at the Hurley defendants. The “litigation finger” test is satisfied. In Stechyshyn v. Domljanovic, 2015 ONCA 889, 129 O.R. (3d) 236 at para 1 the Court of Appeal clearly stated that showing due diligence is not required:
On a motion to correct the name of a defendant on the basis of misnomer, as long as the true defendant would know on reading the statement of claim he was the intended defendant, a plaintiff need not establish due diligence in identifying the true defendant within the limitation period: see Kitcher v. Queensway General Hospital (1997), 1997 CanLII 1931 (ON CA), 44 O.R. (3d) 589 (C.A.), at paras 1 and 4; Lloyd v. Clark, 2008 ONCA 343, 44 M.P.L.R. (4th) 159, at para. 4.
 While in many cases “coincidence” exists “between the plaintiff’s intention to name a party and the intended party’s knowledge that it was the intended defendant” [Lloyd v. Clark, 2008 ONCA 343, 44 M.P.L.R. (4th) 159 para. 4], this is not a necessary requirement to rely upon misnomer. The question is only whether a reasonable person reading the claim would recognize him or herself as the defendant: see Davies v. Elsby Brothers Ltd.,  3 All E.R. 672,  1 W.L.R. 170 (C.A.), at p. 676. To impose a notice requirement would be inconsistent with the broader application of misnomer and subrule 21(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002.