Dr. Philip C. Miller

The defendant brought a motion under s. 105(4) of the Courts of Justice Act seeking an order compelling the plaintiff to attend a further independent medical examination by a psychologist for a psycho‑vocational assessment shortly before trial.

The defendant argued the examination was necessary to respond to the plaintiff’s psychological expert report asserting that the plaintiff was totally disabled from employment following a motor vehicle accident.

The court held that the defendant had not demonstrated that the further examination was necessary to ensure a fair trial, noting the plaintiff had already undergone several defence examinations and that the defendant could obtain opinion evidence through a records review.

The court further found the motion was brought too late, only weeks before trial, and would likely prejudice the plaintiff by delaying the scheduled trial.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant, who claimed to suffer from a traumatic brain injury following a motor vehicle accident, appealed an Arbitrator's preliminary order denying her request to have a friend act as a 'facilitator' during her accident benefits arbitration.

The Director of Arbitrations dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Arbitrator's conclusion that the appellant had the mental capacity to conduct her own case.

The Director reviewed conflicting medical evidence and concluded that the proposed facilitator's role blurred the line between communication assistance and representation, which is restricted under the Insurance Act.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for nerve block injections, botox injections, massage treatments, and a special award for delayed payment of psychological and vocational assessments.

The arbitrator found that the nerve block injections were a reasonable and necessary treatment for short-term pain relief, ordering the insurer to pay the $800 cost.

However, the claim for botox and massage was dismissed, as the arbitrator accepted expert evidence that botox is an experimental treatment for chronic pain.

The arbitrator also awarded a special award of $1,170 against the insurer for unreasonably denying psychological treatment without requesting a Designated Assessment Centre (DAC) assessment, despite the insurer settling the claim shortly before the hearing.