Dr. Guscott

Following an arbitration where the insurer successfully defended all claims for statutory accident benefits, the insurer sought its expenses.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's conduct, including the late production of a voluminous ODSP file and changing the structure of the case mid-hearing, unnecessarily prolonged and hindered the proceedings.

Applying the principle of fairness and noting the consumer protection nature of the legislation, the arbitrator applied a 25% discount to the insurer's legal fees and excluded surveillance costs from disbursements.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses fixed at $52,167.11.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury trial where the defendant was found 100% at fault and the jury awarded $1,053 for general damages and $38,500 for past wage loss, the defendants brought a threshold motion arguing the plaintiff did not suffer a permanent serious impairment.

The trial judge granted the threshold motion, finding the plaintiff's evidence lacked credibility and was undermined by surveillance footage and medical records showing significant pre-existing chronic pain and narcotic use.

The court concluded the low-impact collision did not materially contribute to a diminution in her function.

The defendants moved for an order requiring the plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident action to attend additional defence medical examinations by a physiatrist and a psychiatrist.

The defendants argued the plaintiff’s condition had changed and that trial fairness required further examinations because the plaintiff’s experts had examined her multiple times.

The court reviewed the governing principles under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 33.01–33.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding further defence medical examinations.

The court held that no material change in the plaintiff’s condition had been demonstrated and that the request largely amounted to an attempt to corroborate existing defence opinions.

Trial fairness did not require additional examinations, and the defendants had not provided sufficient evidentiary foundation to justify the order.