In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendant brought a motion compelling the plaintiff to attend a second defence medical examination, this time with a physiatrist.
The plaintiff had already attended a psychiatric defence medical examination and argued that only one examination should be permitted.
The court held that the plaintiff was claiming both psychological and physical injuries, which are distinct areas of medical inquiry, and fairness required that the defence obtain an additional expert assessment addressing the physical injuries.
The court found minimal prejudice to the plaintiff given the absence of a scheduled trial date and the importance of the assessment to the defence case.
The motion was granted, but no costs were awarded due to ambiguity created by earlier correspondence between counsel.
