Court finds discrepancy arising from modified police report to be a legal “misnomer”

Identifying a discrepancy in a police report to be a legal “misnomer,” an Ontario judge added a defendant to an action in spite of the expiry of the statute of limitations.In Sorokataya v. Keith, a modified police report created a controversy over the owner of a vehicle involved in a May 2007 motor vehicle collision. The crash injured the plaintiff, Nadezdha Sorokataya, who issued a statement of claim identifying Trevor Keith as the driver of the other vehicle. The statement of claim named Keith’s mother, Monica Keith, as the owner of the vehicle. Monica Keith insisted the owner of the vehicle was actually her husband, Colin Keith. Sorokataya then brought a motion in April 2010 to amend her statement of claim to name Colin Keith as the defendant owner of the vehicle and Intact as the insurer. Colin Keith opposed the motion and noted it was outside the limitation period.Both the plaintiffs and the defendants introduced a police report regarding the motor vehicle accident, the judge reported. Each side claimed it had obtained the report at the scene of the accident.Monica Keith’s version of the police report shows “Colin Keith” as the owner of the vehicle. Sorokataya’s version has “Colin Keith” named as the owner, but this is crossed out and replaced with “Monica Keith.””Obviously, the police report in the possession of the plaintiffs has been modified by someone, at some time,” the court observed. “No explanation was given by the plaintiffs as to how they ended up in the possession of a modified police report.”