Dr. Jeremie Larouche

The defendants in a solicitor negligence action brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend orthopaedic and psychiatric defence medical examinations.

The action had already been set down for trial, requiring the defendants to seek leave under Rule 48.04.

The court applied the flexible approach to granting leave, noting that the trial date was not in jeopardy and that trial fairness required the defendants to have an opportunity to respond to the plaintiff's expert reports.

Despite the plaintiff's concerns regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and travel, the court ordered a virtual psychiatric assessment and an in-person orthopaedic assessment, finding that safety protocols at the hospital would adequately address the risks.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in a 2010 motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury trial, the trial judge ruled on the questions to be put to the jury and the defendants' threshold motion.

The judge declined to put questions on future health care costs and loss of competitive advantage to the jury due to insufficient evidence and risk of double recovery.

On the threshold motion, the judge held that a psychologist does not qualify as a 'physician' under s. 4.3 of O. Reg. 461/96.

Furthermore, the judge found that the plaintiff failed to prove she sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function, noting her successful return to school and employment.

The defendants' motion to dismiss the claim for non-pecuniary damages was granted.