The plaintiff brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to add the proposed U-Haul defendants and substitute them for the defendant 'John Doe' as the owner of the motor vehicle involved in an accident, after the expiry of the limitation period.
The court found that the plaintiff failed to meet the evidentiary threshold for discoverability under Wakelin, as no evidence was led to explain why the identity of the defendants could not have been obtained with due diligence.
However, the court granted the motion based on the doctrine of misnomer under Lloyd, finding a coincidence between the plaintiff's intention to name the vehicle owner and the U-Haul defendants' knowledge that they were the intended defendants.
The court declined to exercise its discretion to refuse the correction.
