The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their statement of claim in a medical malpractice action to substitute three specific physicians for 'Jane Doe' defendants, arguing misnomer, or alternatively, special circumstances.
The court found that misnomer did not apply as the 'litigation finger' was not pointing clearly at the proposed defendants, but rather the pleadings were vague and could apply to almost any medical staff member.
However, the court granted leave to add the proposed defendants under the doctrine of special circumstances, leaving the final determination of the limitation defence to the trial judge due to conflicting evidence on the plaintiffs' diligence.
