The moving party defendant, Dufferin, brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to correct the names of John Doe defendants to three proposed defendants under the doctrine of misnomer.
The court found that a defendant has standing to bring a misnomer motion.
The court granted the motion with respect to two proposed defendants (TIL and TIES), finding that the 'litigating finger' pointed at them and they would not suffer non-compensable prejudice.
However, the court dismissed the motion with respect to the third proposed defendant (TDI), finding that although the 'litigating finger' pointed at them, they would suffer non-compensable prejudice due to significant delay and lack of notice, and the moving party failed to show reasonable due diligence under the discoverability principle.
