In a significant decision for medical malpractice and long-term care litigation in Ontario, the Superior Court of Justice has confirmed that plaintiffs may correct “John Doe” pleadings to name specific doctors and care providers after the limitation period has expired, where the original claim clearly pointed the “litigation finger” at those defendants.
In The Estate of Catherine Cecilia Henders v. Lakeridge Health Oshawa, Justice Casullo granted the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their statement of claim to properly name several physicians and a home-care contractor (ParaMed Inc.), rejecting arguments that the amendments were barred by the strict two-year limitation period under the Trustee Act.
This decision reinforces an important protection for patients and families in complex medical negligence cases—particularly where key information is controlled by healthcare institutions and only disclosed through litigation.
Catherine Henders was a vulnerable elderly woman with dementia who moved between multiple healthcare settings, including:
a retirement residence (Greenview),
an acute-care hospital (Lakeridge Health Oshawa),
a long-term care facility (Chartwell Ballycliffe), and
a hospital admission to Scarborough Health Network.
Over time, Catherine developed severe, untreated bedsores, eventually diagnosed as Stage 4 pressure ulcers. She died on September 11, 2018 from complications arising from those wounds.
The lawsuit alleges systemic failures across multiple institutions and care providers, including physicians and wound-care staff, to assess, diagnose, treat, and monitor pressure sores—failures that unfolded gradually and across settings rather than in a single discrete event.
Because Catherine had died, the claim was governed by section 38 of the Trustee Act, which imposes a strict two-year limitation period that is not subject to discoverability.
When the claim was issued in 2020, the plaintiffs did not yet know:
which physicians treated Catherine at specific facilities, or
that wound care had been subcontracted by the LHIN to ParaMed Inc.
As is common in medical malpractice cases, the plaintiffs used John and Jane Doe placeholders to describe unknown doctors, nurses, and personal support workers involved in Catherine’s care.
The identities of the physicians (Drs. Gee, Wang, and Kalra) and ParaMed only became clear after productions were delivered—well after the limitation period expired.
The defendants argued this was an improper attempt to add new defendants out of time.
Justice Casullo rejected the defence position and held that this was a classic misnomer case, not the addition of new parties.
Relying heavily on the leading Ontario decision Loy-English v. The Ottawa Hospital, the Court emphasized that:
Plaintiffs are permitted to use pseudonyms when defendants cannot be identified before issuing a claim.
There is no due diligence requirement for correcting a misnomer.
The key question is whether a properly informed defendant, reading the claim generously, would recognize that they were the intended target.
Here, the answer was yes.
The Court found that:
Drs. Gee and Wang fit squarely within the pleaded description of physicians with privileges at Lakeridge who participated in Catherine’s care.
Dr. Kalra was effectively Greenview’s only resident physician, ran a clinic onsite, and acknowledged treating Catherine’s bedsores.
Each physician agreed that had they seen the claim earlier, they would have recognized themselves as the intended defendant.
The pleadings were sufficiently specific about roles, locations, and conduct, even without names.
Although the claim initially named the LHIN and its staff, the Court held that the pleadings clearly alleged that an entity and its PSW employees provided wound care and failed to do so appropriately.
Once it became clear that ParaMed was the LHIN’s subcontractor, the Court found there was no plausible reading of the claim under which ParaMed would not understand that it was the true target.
The Court also rejected arguments that the passage of time caused irreparable prejudice:
The motion to amend was brought promptly—within one month of learning the defendants’ identities.
The defendants were still practising, records were available, and institutional documentation could refresh memory.
Assertions about missing notes or faded recollections were speculative and unsupported by evidence.
Justice Casullo was clear that allowing defendants to escape liability purely on technical pleading grounds would undermine the justice system’s goal of resolving disputes on their merits.
This ruling is important because it:
Confirms that John Doe pleadings remain a valid and powerful tool in medical negligence cases.
Protects families where hospitals, long-term care homes, and contractors delay or control access to records.
Reinforces that courts will look past technicalities to ensure the true issues in dispute are decided fairly.
Clarifies that even under the Trustee Act’s strict limitation regime, misnomer remains available where the pleadings clearly identify the intended defendants.
For patients and families dealing with delayed disclosure, fragmented care, or institutional stonewalling, this decision is a meaningful safeguard.
Medical negligence cases—especially those involving multiple providers, hospitals, or long-term care facilities—are legally complex and time-sensitive. Early legal advice can make the difference between preserving a claim and losing it forever.
If you believe a loved one suffered harm due to failures in medical, nursing, or wound care, speak with an experienced Ontario medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible.
Paul Cahill has decades of experience acting for patients and families in complex medical negligence and wrongful death cases across Ontario.
Decision Date: February 4, 2026
Jurisdiction: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Citation: The Estate of Catherin Cecilia Henders v. Lakeridge Health Oshawa, 2026 ONSC 701 (CanLII)
What CPSO v. Faruqi Means for Patients and Physicians On January 21, 2026, the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal released an important decision addressing
In Doyle v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Ontario’s medical discipline tribunal decided that a psychiatrist whose licence had been revoked could return
One of the hardest conversations a medical malpractice lawyer has is telling someone that they cannot offer representation. People often contact a lawyer because something
In Leduc v. Dufour, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by a plaintiff-side law firm and upheld a trial judge’s decision to significantly