The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order requiring the injured plaintiff to attend a further defence medical examination with an addiction psychiatrist in a motor vehicle personal injury action.
The motions judge had granted the defendant’s request for the additional examination on the basis that the plaintiff’s marijuana use and addiction issues were central to the litigation and that expert evidence from a specialist would assist the court.
On the leave motion, the court considered Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and whether a conflicting decision justified granting leave.
The court found that the broad discretionary approach taken by the motions judge conflicted with the narrower approach articulated in prior authority governing further defence medical examinations.
Leave to appeal to the Divisional Court was therefore granted.
