<\/p>\n
The decision in Corp. of Township of North Shore v. Grant <\/em><\/a>has a helpful summary of misnomer principles:<\/p>\n [<\/a>18]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Nonetheless, motions to correct misnomer or misdescription are still permitted pursuant to\u00a0s. 21<\/a>\u00a0of the\u00a0Limitations Act, 2002<\/a><\/i>, which provides:<\/p>\n (1)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0If a limitation period in respect of a claim against the person has expired, the claim shall not be pursued by adding the person as a party to any existing proceeding.<\/p>\n \u00a0(2)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Subsection (1) does not prevent the correction of a misnaming or misdescription of a party.<\/p>\n \u00a0[<\/a>19]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Section 21<\/a>\u00a0has been held to apply equally to motions in which a plaintiff seeks to substitute a plaintiff in an action, notwithstanding language that appears to refer only to defendants being substituted:\u00a0\u00a0Horgan v. Tanktek Environmental Services Ltd.<\/i>\u00a0(2009),\u00a0178 A.C.W.S. (3d) 87 (Ont. S.C.)<\/span><\/span>, aff\u2019d\u00a02009 ONCA 820 (CanLII)<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n [<\/a>20]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0There is a debate in the jurisprudence as to whether a request to amend a pleading by adding a party who was omitted altogether from the style of cause is properly characterized as a request to correct a misnomer or misdescription.\u00a0 Some cases have held that it is not and, instead, have allowed the amendment using the court\u2019s power to cure a \u201ctechnical irregularity\u201d:\u00a0 see\u00a0Hastings v. Halton Condo Corp. to 324 et al.<\/i>,\u00a02012 ONSC 175 (CanLII)<\/span><\/a><\/span>;\u00a0Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 810 v. King Spadina Development Corporation<\/i>,\u00a02014 ONSC 5560 (CanLII)<\/a>,\u00a02014 ONSC 5560 (Master)<\/span><\/span>.<\/p>\n [<\/a>21]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Regardless of the manner in which a request to substitute a plaintiff is characterized, the jurisprudence is clear that an amendment will be permitted where there is a \u201ccoincidence\u201d between a plaintiff\u2019s intention to sue and the intended defendant\u2019s knowledge of the plaintiff\u2019s intention.\u00a0 In\u00a0Lloyd v. Clark<\/i>,\u00a02008 ONCA 343 (CanLII)<\/span><\/a><\/span>, the plaintiff was denied leave by the motion judge to name the Regional Municipality of Durham as a defendant in place of the Town of Ajax and the Corporation of the Town of Whitby.\u00a0 In a brief endorsement allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal held:<\/p>\n The case law amply supports the proposition that where there is a coincidence between the plaintiff\u2019s intention to name a party and the intended party\u2019s knowledge that it was the intended defendant, an amendment may be made despite the passage of the limitation period to correct the misdescription or misnomer.\u00a0 [Citations omitted.]<\/p>\n \u00a0[<\/a>22]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Although\u00a0Lloyd<\/i>\u00a0was a case in which a plaintiff sought to substitute a defendant, it has frequently been applied in cases in which a plaintiff seeks to substitute or add a plaintiff: see, for e.g.,\u00a0Streamline Foods Ltd. v. Jantz Canada Corp.<\/i>,\u00a02010 ONSC 6393 (CanLII)<\/span><\/a><\/span>, aff\u2019d\u00a02011 ONSC 1630 (CanLII)<\/a>,\u00a02011 ONSC 1630 (Div. Ct.)<\/span>,\u00a02012 ONCA 174<\/span><\/span>;\u00a0Tetreault v. Nussbaum<\/i>,\u00a02015 ONSC 6226 (CanLII)<\/span><\/a><\/span>;\u00a0Asset Strategy Corp. v. Rodinia Lithium Inc.<\/i>,\u00a02016 ONSC 5337 (CanLII)<\/span><\/a><\/span>\u00a0.<\/p>\n [<\/a>23]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Thus, an amendment to add the name of one or more plaintiffs to a statement of claim should be permitted notwithstanding the expiry of a limitation period where the court is satisfied that the plaintiffs sought to be added to an action were intended plaintiffs prior to the expiration of the limitation period, that the defendant knew that they were intended plaintiffs, and where no prejudice arises that cannot be compensated for in costs.<\/p>\n [<\/a>24]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0I am satisfied that this is the situation here.\u00a0 There is ample evidence in this case both of the intentions of the Council Members to claim against the defendant and of the defendant\u2019s knowledge of those intentions.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The decision in Corp. of Township of North Shore v. Grant has a helpful summary of misnomer principles: [18]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Nonetheless, motions to correct misnomer or misdescription are still permitted pursuant to\u00a0s. 21\u00a0of the\u00a0Limitations Act, 2002, which provides: (1)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0If a limitation period in respect of a claim against the person has expired, the … Continue reading Ontario: the principles of 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":[416,407,200],"class_list":["post-711","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ontario","tag-helpful-summaries","tag-misnomer","tag-ontario-act-s-21"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/711","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=711"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/711\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":712,"href":"https:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/711\/revisions\/712"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=711"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=711"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=711"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n