The plaintiffs in a medical negligence action moved under Rules 5.04(2) and 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to amend their statement of claim to add additional physicians as defendants and to substitute certain doctors for fictitiously named defendants on the basis of misnomer.
The court considered the discoverability principles under the Limitations Act, 2002 and the evidentiary threshold required to add parties where the limitation period may have expired.
The court found the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of due diligence in identifying several proposed defendants prior to the expiry of the limitation period.
The court also rejected the misnomer argument for certain physicians because the pleadings did not clearly point to them as the intended defendants.
Leave was granted only for two physicians whose addition was uncontested, while the balance of the requested amendments was refused.
