The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend her statement of claim to correct a misnomer or alternatively add a new defendant in place of a fictitiously named “John Doe Construction Company.” The proposed defendant opposed the motion on the basis that the amendment would constitute the addition of a new party after expiry of the limitation period.
The court held that the pleadings did not clearly identify the proposed defendant as the intended party and therefore did not meet the legal test for misnomer.
The court further held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence to discover the identity of the alleged tortfeasor within the limitation period.
The motion to amend the claim was dismissed.
