Dr. Kumbhare

During a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff sought to call her treating psychologist to give opinion evidence beyond that of a participant expert.

The defendant objected, arguing the psychologist's reports did not comply with Rule 53.03, the plaintiff had not sought leave to call more than three experts under s. 12 of the Evidence Act, and the psychologist lacked the requisite impartiality.

The court held that the reports collectively complied with Rule 53.03 and granted leave to call the witness, finding no trial unfairness or prejudice to the defendant.

The court also found no clear evidence that the treating relationship would prevent the psychologist from fulfilling her duty to the court, leaving the final assessment of her impartiality to a qualification voir dire.

The defendant brought an urgent motion to compel the plaintiff to attend two independent medical examinations (physiatry and psychological) shortly before trial.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing it was brought too late.

The court granted the request for the physiatry examination, finding that the plaintiff's late service of a physiatry expert report constituted a substantial change in circumstances warranting a responding report.

However, the court dismissed the request for a psychological examination, as the plaintiff had not served a psychological expert report and the defendant had long been aware of the psychological claims.

Costs of $3,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict awarding her $2,500 in general damages (netting $0 after the statutory deductible) and a costs award of $140,000 following a motor vehicle accident trial where liability was admitted.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to charge the jury on the 'Thin Skull Rule' and by making comments that raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the jury verdict was reasonable and the trial judge's comments did not show bias.

The court also granted leave to appeal the costs order but dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the Rule 57.01 factors despite not providing written reasons.