In a long‑term disability insurance action, the plaintiff brought a preliminary motion to strike portions of an affidavit attaching a psychiatrist’s report relied on by the defendant in support of a motion for additional medical examinations under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act.
Alternatively, the plaintiff sought the right to cross‑examine the psychiatrist.
The court held that the report was not being tendered as expert opinion evidence but merely to demonstrate that the examining physician recommended additional testing.
Because the court was not asked to accept the scientific validity of the recommendations, the report could be attached to an affidavit on information and belief and did not trigger the right to cross‑examine the physician.
The preliminary motion was therefore dismissed and the main motion for further examinations was permitted to proceed.
