The plaintiff moved under Rules 5.04(2) and 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to amend a statement of claim to substitute identified drivers and an owner for previously named John Doe defendants following a multi‑vehicle collision.
The court accepted that the pleading satisfied the initial test for misnomer because the statement of claim clearly described the accident such that a reasonable person would recognize that it referred to them.
However, the court exercised its residual discretion under Rule 5.04(2) to refuse the amendment.
The proposed defendants had no notice of the claim until nearly five years after the accident and almost three years after the presumptive limitation period expired, creating potential non‑compensable prejudice.
The court also emphasized the plaintiff’s significant unexplained delay in pursuing the amendment and the policy rationale underlying limitation periods.
