{"id":1110,"date":"2020-05-30T16:23:16","date_gmt":"2020-05-30T20:23:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/?p=1110"},"modified":"2020-05-30T16:23:23","modified_gmt":"2020-05-30T20:23:23","slug":"ontario-misconceptions-about-misnomer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/?p=1110","title":{"rendered":"Ontario: misconceptions about misnomer"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Sora et al. v. Emerson Electrical Co. et al.<\/em><\/a>, the court reminds us that entitlement to misnomer relief doesn\u2019t 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:<\/p>\n

[21]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0The plaintiffs issued their statement of claim before the expiry of the limitation period. The pseudonyms used, \u201cJohn Doe Retailer\u201d and \u201cJohn Doe Installer\u201d pointed at the Hurley\u00a0defendants. The \u201clitigation finger\u201d test is satisfied. In\u00a0Stechyshyn v. Domljanovic<\/i>,\u00a02015 ONCA 889<\/span>,\u00a0129 O.R. (3d) 236<\/span><\/a>\u00a0at para\u00a01<\/a><\/span>\u00a0the Court of Appeal clearly stated that showing\u00a0due diligence is not required:<\/p>\n

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\u00a0Kitcher v. Queensway General Hospital<\/i>\u00a0(1997),\u00a01997 CanLII 1931 (ON CA)<\/span><\/a>,\u00a044 O.R. (3d) 589 (C.A.)<\/span>, at paras\u00a01 and 4<\/a><\/span>; Lloyd v. Clark,\u00a02008 ONCA 343<\/span><\/a>,\u00a044 M.P.L.R. (4th) 159<\/span>, at para.\u00a04<\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

[<\/a>22]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0While in many cases \u201ccoincidence\u201d exists \u201cbetween the plaintiff\u2019s intention to name a party and the intended party\u2019s knowledge that it was the intended defendant\u201d [Lloyd v. Clark<\/i>,\u00a0<\/i>2008 ONCA 343<\/span><\/a>,\u00a044 M.P.L.R. (4th) 159<\/span>\u00a0para.\u00a04]<\/a><\/span>, 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\u00a0Davies v. Elsby Brothers Ltd<\/i>.,\u00a0[1960] 3 All E.R. 672<\/span>,\u00a0[1961] 1 W.L.R. 170 (C.A.)<\/span>, at p. 676<\/span>. To impose a notice requirement would be inconsistent with the broader application of misnomer and\u00a0subrule 21(2)<\/a>\u00a0of the\u00a0Limitations Act<\/i>,\u00a02002<\/i><\/a>.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Sora et al. v. Emerson Electrical Co. et al., the court reminds us that entitlement to misnomer relief doesn\u2019t 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: [21]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0The plaintiffs issued their … Continue reading Ontario: misconceptions about misnomer<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[609,491,407,440],"class_list":["post-1110","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ontario","tag-existence-of-coincidence","tag-litigation-finger-test","tag-misnomer","tag-the-supreme-litigation-finger"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1110","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1110"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1110\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1112,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1110\/revisions\/1112"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1110"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1110"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1110"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}