Dr. Lorne Switzman

The defendant brought a motion for leave to bring a motion after the action was set down for trial, seeking to compel the plaintiff to attend an independent neuropsychological examination.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the defendant had sufficient time to arrange the assessment and that her condition was well-documented.

The court granted leave, finding that the plaintiff's late service of a new neuropsychological report constituted a substantial and unexpected change in circumstances.

Applying the factors for ordering a further medical examination, the court held that the defendant was entitled to respond to the plaintiff's expert report with a matching specialty report to ensure trial fairness.

The plaintiff was ordered to attend the examination, and the defendant was granted an extension of time to serve the resulting report.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's 15-year-old personal injury action for delay and breach of court orders, primarily stemming from the plaintiff's failure to complete defence medical examinations.

The plaintiff, who had been self-represented for a significant period, refused to be examined by male doctors due to severe anxiety and later had conflicts with female examining doctors.

The court found the delay was inordinate but excusable given the circumstances, and that the defendant suffered no actual prejudice.

The motion to dismiss was denied, but the court ordered the plaintiff to attend a defence medical examination with a female specialist under strict conditions, including audio recording, warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's 15-year-old personal injury action for delay and breach of court orders, primarily due to the plaintiff's failure to complete defence medical examinations.

The plaintiff, who had been self-represented for a significant period, refused to be examined by male doctors due to severe anxiety stemming from a past assault, and later had confrontational interactions with female examiners.

The Master found the delay was inordinate but excusable under the circumstances, and that the defendant suffered no actual prejudice.

The motion to dismiss was denied, but the Master imposed strict terms for a final defence medical examination, including that it be conducted by a female specialist and be audio recorded.