The proposed amendment names defendants who were denied timely discovery possibilities
The Ontario Court of Appeal denied an amendment to a claim in a motorcycle accident case, ruling that the prolonged delay in identifying the correct defendants resulted in irreparable prejudice.
Orllyn Loney and his wife, Yvonne Prouty, appealed the rejection of their motion to amend their statement of claim. The couple sought to substitute “John Doe” and “ABC Corporation,” initially listed as defendants after a 2013 motorcycle accident, with Michael Mills and 564242 Ontario Limited, operating as Liftlock Fuels.
In August 2013, Loney was injured in a single-vehicle motorcycle accident. He claimed a tractor-trailer, operated by an unknown driver, veered onto the shoulder of the road, causing debris to fly into his path and resulting in his loss of control. In 2015, he issued a claim against unidentified parties, naming them “John Doe” and “ABC Corporation,” as they did not know the driver’s identity. Intact Insurance, Loney’s insurer, was also named as a defendant.
After years of investigation, the appellants discovered the identities of Mills, the tractor-trailer driver, and Liftlock Fuels. In 2022, they sought leave from the court to amend their claim under Rule 5.04(2) of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs misnomer, and Rule 48.04(1), as the trial had already been set. The motion judge denied their request, citing an unjustified delay and resulting prejudice to the defendants.
The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, emphasizing that significant delays in amending pleadings, particularly after discovering the defendants' identities, can result in substantial prejudice. The proposed defendants were denied timely discovery opportunities, such as conducting early surveillance or obtaining a defence medical assessment. The court noted that the appellants had failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their delay, nor did they effectively rebut the presumption of prejudice arising from the long lapse of time since the accident.
The court also rejected the argument that the motion judge had wrongly imposed a due diligence obligation. It found that the decision was based on the appellants' failure to act on critical information available in 2016, well before setting the action down for trial. The court emphasized that limitations on amending pleadings are designed to promote the timely resolution of civil disputes and protect defendants from prolonged uncertainty. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal.
