Master Short’s decision in Frederica Mitchell v. John Doe is notable for its comprehensive summary of misnomer principles.
So too is Master Short’s decision in Livska v. Molina . It’s an example of the circumstances where the court grants misnomer relief while granting leave to the correct party to plead a limitations defence. Usually, misnomer relief means the correct party can’t plead a limitations defence because misnomer relief is a correction, not an addition or substitution (although the Court of Appeal is inconsistent on this point). This means that the correct defendant was always a party to the proceeding, just misnamed, and if the proceeding was commenced in time, there can be no limitation defence for the correct defendant.
In Livska, the plaintiff named Molina, the alleged perpetrator of an assault, as a defendant. Molina didn’t defend, and the plaintiff noted her in default. Subsequently, the sister learned that Molina’s sister may have participated in the assault. Master Short granted misnomer relief on the basis that Molina, correctly named, was in fact both herself and her sister. Because Molina didn’t defend the action, whether the plaintiff’s proceeding was timely remained a live issue.