Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 02 MAY 2023

ONSC Clarifies Misnomer Rules In Abramov v. Doe Hit-and-run Case

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Contributor
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

With over 750 lawyers, intellectual property agents and other professionals, BLG services...

View firm profile
Explore more from Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

In Abramov v. Doe, 2023 ONSC 1232 (Abramov), the Ontario Superior Court (the Court) released its decision on a misnomer motion brought by the plaintiff, who tried to substitute...

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

In Abramov v. Doe, 2023 ONSC 1232 (Abramov), the Ontario Superior Court (the Court) released its decision on a misnomer motion brought by the plaintiff, who tried to substitute the "Jane/John" Doe defendant for two individuals related to a hit-and-run case. Abramov provides insightful comments on applying the doctrines of misnomer and discoverability, when dealing with parties who are unidentified at the outset of an action. Although the plaintiff's misnomer motion in Abramov was denied, the Court was not opposed to adding these defendants after the presumptive two-year limitation period, as discoverability remained a live issue.

Overview

The plaintiff in Abramov was involved in a motor vehicle collision. The colliding vehicle immediately left the scene, though a witness followed the fleeing vehicle and called 9-1-1, providing some information about the vehicle. The plaintiff contacted the police the next day, requesting the license plate number, which could not

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from