The plaintiff brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to substitute a named individual for a previously unidentified “John Doe” defendant and to add another individual as a new defendant after the limitation period had expired.
The court considered Rules 5.04 and 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure together with the discoverability principle under the Limitations Act, 2002.
The evidentiary record showed only minimal efforts by the plaintiff to identify the additional proposed defendant prior to the expiry of the limitation period.
The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate due diligence in attempting to discover the proposed defendant’s identity and that the amendment could not be justified on the basis of discoverability or misnomer.
The request to add the additional defendant was dismissed, while the substitution of the identified individual for “John Doe” was permitted on consent.
