Plaintiff alleged he was assaulted when he tried to verbally assist bouncer at defendant night club. Plaintiff named several Doe patrons and three Doe employees in statement of claim, and said he did not learn names of employees until examination for discovery of club’s owner. Plaintiff previously requested identity of employees from defendant, who refused, brought R. 3.10 motion but only learned names of two Doe patrons who had been criminally charged and obtained Crown brief, but it did not name employees. Motion by plaintiff to correct misnomer by amending statement of claim to identify three Doe employees by their real names. Motion granted. Statement of claim described position of Doe employees, who were clearly identified by owner in examination for discovery. There were only four employees working that night, and three Doe employees would have clearly recognized themselves in descriptions in statement of claim, as two were working on patio and one was club manager. There was no prejudice to addition of named defendants and this was proper motion to correct misnomer.
General v. 515679 Ontario Ltd. (Jan. 4, 2016, Ont. S.C.J., T. Maddalena J., Hamilton 11-29212) 262 A.C.W.S. (3d) 332.