{"id":874,"date":"2019-02-03T21:14:36","date_gmt":"2019-02-04T01:14:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/?p=874"},"modified":"2019-02-03T21:14:36","modified_gmt":"2019-02-04T01:14:36","slug":"ontario-two-notable-misnomer-decisions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/?p=874","title":{"rendered":"Ontario: two notable misnomer decisions"},"content":{"rendered":"

Master Short’s decision in Frederica Mitchell v. John Doe<\/em><\/a> is notable for its comprehensive summary of misnomer principles.<\/p>\n

So too is Master Short’s decision in Livska v. Molina <\/a><\/em>.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 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).\u00a0 This\u00a0means 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.<\/p>\n

In Livska<\/em>, the plaintiff named Molina, the alleged perpetrator of an assault, as a defendant.\u00a0 Molina didn\u2019t defend, and the plaintiff noted her in default.\u00a0 Subsequently, the sister learned that Molina’s sister may have participated in the assault.\u00a0\u00a0 Master Short granted misnomer relief on the basis that Molina, correctly named, was in fact both herself and her sister.\u00a0 Because Molina didn\u2019t defend the action, whether the plaintiff’s proceeding was timely remained a live issue.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 .\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Usually, misnomer … Continue reading Ontario: two notable misnomer decisions<\/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":[407,200,411,522],"class_list":["post-874","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ontario","tag-misnomer","tag-ontario-act-s-21","tag-ontario-act-s-212","tag-when-one-is-in-fact-two"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/874","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=874"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/874\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":875,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/874\/revisions\/875"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=874"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=874"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=874"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}