C. Martin

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend defence medical examinations with a neuropsychologist and a psychiatrist, in addition to an agreed-upon physiatry examination.

The plaintiff, who claimed damages for physical, cognitive, and emotional injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident, argued she should only have to attend one of the two disputed examinations.

The court granted the motion, finding that trial fairness required the defendant to have the opportunity to respond to the plaintiff's evidence regarding her physical, emotional, and cognitive impairments.

The plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident action brought a motion under Rule 30.10 seeking production of a Crown Brief from the non-party Attorney General of Ontario.

The Attorney General objected on the basis that the motion was premature, as statements of defence had not yet been filed.

The court agreed, holding that relevance cannot be established in a vacuum before pleadings are closed.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to renew it once pleadings are closed.