Today's Court of Appeal decision in Ormerod v. Ferner, 2009 ONCA 69 makes clear that misnomers will be corrected even where the correction is significant (here "S. Graham" in place of "P. Ferner"):
[21] ... This court recently summarized the current approach at para. 4 of Lloyd v. Clark, [2008] O.J. No. 1682:
The case law amply supports the proposition that where there is a coincidence between the plaintiff's intention to name a party and the intended party's knowledge that it was the intended defendant, an amendment may be made despite the passage of the limitation period to correct the misdescription or misnomer. See Ladouceur v. Howarth, [1973] S.C.J. No. 120 (S.C.C.); Kitcher v. Queensway General Hospital, [1997] O.J. No. 3305 (C.A.) and J.R. Sheet Metal & Manufacturing Ltd. V. Prairie Rose Wood Products, [1986] A.J. No. 7 (C.A.).
...
[25] It seems to me that the appellants are attempting to forestall a development in the law that has already taken place. This court has already applied the misnomer approach, in three cases..., in equivalent circumstances where the intended defendants, though not personally served with the originating process, were found to have had knowledge of the claim when it was issued. There is no basis to interfere with the motion judge's finding that this was a case of misnomer.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
No comments:
Post a Comment