The plaintiffs were involved in a motor vehicle accident and commenced an action against their own insurer and 'John Doe' as the unidentified driver.
Almost two and a half years later, the plaintiffs brought a motion to substitute the proposed defendants for 'John Doe' on the basis of misnomer.
The proposed defendants argued they would suffer prejudice due to the plaintiffs' delay and lack of due diligence.
Applying the Court of Appeal's jurisprudence on misnomer, the Master granted the motion, finding that the proposed defendants' insurer was aware of the accident from the outset.
However, due to the plaintiffs' significant delay, they were denied interest on any ultimate recovery from the date of the accident until June 30, 2018.
