Dr. Kleinman

The defendants in a personal injury action arising from a slip and fall requested a chambers appointment to amend a timetable and compel the plaintiff to attend independent medical examinations with a neurologist and a physiatrist in Toronto and Mississauga.

The plaintiff, who resides in Kitchener, objected to the locations and raised concerns about COVID-19 waivers and transportation.

The court found the plaintiff's objections unreasonable, noting the action was commenced in Toronto.

The court ordered the plaintiff to attend the scheduled assessments and amended the timetable for the delivery of expert reports.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend the Statement of Claim to increase damages to $2,000,000 and to strike the jury notice due to trial delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for further medical examinations.

The court granted leave to both parties to bring their motions after the action was set down for trial.

The court allowed the amendment to the Statement of Claim and ordered the plaintiff to attend further medical examinations.

However, the court dismissed the motion to strike the jury, finding that the defendants would be prejudiced by the loss of their litigation strategy to have the plaintiff's credibility assessed by a jury.

The defendant brought a threshold motion during a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident, seeking a declaration that the plaintiff's claims for non-pecuniary general damages and health care expenses were barred under the Insurance Act.

The plaintiff had a significant history of pre-existing neck and back pain.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his current ailments were caused by the subject accident.

Furthermore, even if causation was established, the plaintiff failed to prove that his impairments substantially interfered with most of his usual activities of daily living.

The threshold motion was granted, barring the claims.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend independent medical examinations.

The plaintiff did not dispute the right to the examinations but sought to impose several restrictive conditions via a court order, including prohibitions on audio/video recording, questionnaires, and opinions on liability or credibility.

The court declined to impose a standard form order with the plaintiff's proposed terms, noting that many terms were either undisputed or overly broad.

The court ordered the plaintiff to attend the examinations, provided they could be arranged promptly, with reports complying with Rule 53.03(2.1).

The corporate defendants brought a motion for the production of pre-accident clinical counselling notes and for a further independent psychiatric examination of the plaintiff, two weeks before the scheduled trial of a motor vehicle accident claim.

The court granted the production of the clinical notes, finding them highly relevant to the co-plaintiff's Family Law Act claim for loss of care, guidance, and companionship.

However, the court dismissed the request for a further psychiatric examination, ruling it unreasonable and procedurally unfair to require the plaintiff to undergo another examination on the eve of trial without evidence of a significant change in her condition.

The defendants moved for an order compelling the plaintiff in a motor vehicle personal injury action to undergo a further orthopaedic examination.

Applying the necessity, fairness and prejudice framework governing further defence medical examinations, the court held the evidentiary record did not establish a legitimate need for another assessment.

The defendants had already obtained a physiatry assessment addressing causation, impairment and prognosis, and failed to show a material change in condition after that defence assessment.

The motion was denied, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity scale.