The defendant Metrolinx brought a motion seeking an order to compel the injured plaintiff, J.E., to attend an in-person psychiatric assessment.
Metrolinx argued this was necessary to respond to evidence regarding J.E.'s psychiatric conditions, including a recent schizophrenia diagnosis.
The plaintiffs opposed, arguing their pleadings did not attribute the recent psychiatric conditions to the incident and that their expert, a neuropsychologist, could address the diagnoses.
The court dismissed Metrolinx's motion, finding that Metrolinx had not established the necessity of the in-person assessment to level the playing field, especially since their own psychiatrist had already provided a paper review report addressing causation.
The court emphasized that the plaintiff's pleadings did not allege the 2017 incident caused the 2023 psychiatric conditions and that the role of treating healthcare professionals as participant experts is limited by the court's gatekeeper function.
