In a motor vehicle personal injury action, the defendants brought a motion requiring the plaintiff to attend a further independent medical examination by a psychiatrist after several prior defence examinations had already been conducted.
The defence argued the examination was necessary following a neuropsychologist’s suggestion that the plaintiff’s symptoms might reflect a conversion disorder.
The court held that the defendants already possessed extensive medical evidence from numerous specialists and that the proposed examination appeared aimed at developing a new diagnostic theory rather than responding to an issue requiring further investigation.
The evidentiary basis for the additional psychiatric examination was insufficient, and the request risked becoming a fishing expedition.
Given the number of prior examinations and the intrusive nature of another assessment, the motion was dismissed.
