N. Kharouba

The defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim, a corporation, brought a motion seeking leave under Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to be represented by its sole director, officer, and shareholder, a non-lawyer.

The opposing parties argued the action was complex and the representative would be a key witness.

The court granted the motion, finding the representative capable of advocating for the single-person corporation and noting there is no principled reason to deny leave when an individual would have the right to self-represent.

The moving party defendant, Dufferin, brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to correct the names of John Doe defendants to three proposed defendants under the doctrine of misnomer.

The court found that a defendant has standing to bring a misnomer motion.

The court granted the motion with respect to two proposed defendants (TIL and TIES), finding that the 'litigating finger' pointed at them and they would not suffer non-compensable prejudice.

However, the court dismissed the motion with respect to the third proposed defendant (TDI), finding that although the 'litigating finger' pointed at them, they would suffer non-compensable prejudice due to significant delay and lack of notice, and the moving party failed to show reasonable due diligence under the discoverability principle.