Dr. Angela Mailis

This ruling addresses the plaintiffs' motion for leave to call more than three medical experts in a personal injury trial, as permitted under Section 12 of the Evidence Act.

The court reviewed the proposed experts for both plaintiffs, Kenisha Desmond and Shian Henry, and found significant overlap and duplication in their anticipated testimony, particularly among medical specialists.

Applying the criteria for granting leave and emphasizing the court's gatekeeping function to prevent unnecessary trial length and disproportionate costs, the judge granted leave to call only one expert from each identified group of duplicative specialists for both plaintiffs, while allowing economic and occupational therapy experts.

The defendant brought a motion seeking two orders: a defence medical examination with an orthopaedic surgeon and an in-home cost of care assessment with an occupational therapist.

The court dismissed the request for the orthopaedic examination, finding it would merely corroborate an existing physiatrist's report and was not necessary for trial fairness.

However, the court granted the request for the in-home cost of care assessment, noting significant changes in the plaintiff's condition and living circumstances since the last report, and that the assessment was necessary for the defendant to fairly meet the plaintiff's substantial future cost of care claim, particularly regarding psychological and psychiatric impacts not fully covered by previous physical assessments.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the moving defendants sought an order compelling the plaintiff to attend four independent medical examinations, including assessments by an occupational therapist, psychiatrist, neuropsychologist, and diabetes specialist.

The court considered the principles governing additional medical examinations under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 33.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing trial fairness and the defendants’ entitlement to respond to expert evidence served by the plaintiff.

The court held that psychiatric, neuropsychological, and occupational therapy assessments were justified to allow the defendants to fairly respond to the plaintiff’s psychological injury and future care cost claims.

However, the request for an examination by a diabetes specialist was denied due to insufficient evidence establishing the need for an in‑person assessment.

Conditions were imposed regarding scheduling, transportation, and accommodations to reduce the burden on the plaintiff.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits after 156 weeks, arguing that the appellant's ongoing neuropathic leg pain was not caused by the accident.

An arbitrator dismissed the appellant's claim for ongoing benefits, preferring the medical evidence that a causal link was unlikely given the delayed onset of symptoms.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding no error in the assessment of the expert medical evidence regarding causation.

The appeal was dismissed and no appeal expenses were awarded.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in January 1991 and received statutory accident benefits until January 1995.

He subsequently developed severe neuropathic pain in his left leg and sought ongoing weekly income benefits and medical benefits.

The insurer disputed that the neuropathic condition was caused by the accident.

The arbitrator reviewed extensive medical evidence and testimony, noting a significant time lag between the accident and the onset of the leg pain.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accident caused the neuropathic condition.

Consequently, the claims for ongoing benefits were dismissed.

The insurer's claim for repayment was also dismissed, and the applicant was awarded his arbitration expenses.