The plaintiff sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an interlocutory order dismissing her motion for a court-appointed expert under Rule 52.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The underlying claim sought damages for alleged mental harm and the defendant had already obtained an order for the plaintiff to be assessed by a psychiatrist.
The plaintiff requested the court appoint and fund her own psychiatric expert, but the earlier motion judge found the evidentiary record insufficient to justify a court-appointed expert.
Applying the leave test under Rule 62.02(4), the court found no conflicting authorities and no serious reason to doubt the correctness of the order.
The court also held the issue did not raise matters of broader importance beyond the litigant’s own case.
Leave to appeal was denied.
