In a high‑value personal injury action arising from an on‑ice hockey incident, the defendant moved under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 33 for orders compelling the plaintiff to attend a vocational assessment and to authorize access to detailed GMAT testing data.
The plaintiff alleged permanent cognitive impairment and loss of future earning capacity exceeding $60 million.
The court held that a further psychovocational examination was justified because newly delivered expert reports placed the plaintiff’s post‑injury vocational capacity squarely in issue and fairness required the defendant to obtain responsive expert evidence.
However, the court declined to compel authorization for access to the GMAT database, finding the detailed testing data irrelevant to the material issues in dispute.
The motion was therefore granted in part and dismissed in part.
