Dr. Mailis

The defendants brought a motion seeking production of original diagnostic imaging records, reattendance of the plaintiffs for discovery, and a further defence medical examination of the plaintiff by an orthopaedic surgeon.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing the requests were disproportionate and that the defendants were only entitled to one physical examination.

The court granted the motion, finding the diagnostic imaging relevant and its production justified.

The court also ordered reattendance for discovery to answer follow-up questions.

Finally, the court ordered the further defence medical examination, limited to assessing the cause and prognosis of the plaintiff's labral tear, as the first examining physiatrist lacked the necessary expertise.

The defendant brought a motion under section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 33.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to compel the plaintiff to attend a fourth defence medical examination, this time with a physiatrist.

The plaintiff had already attended examinations with an orthopaedic surgeon, a psychiatrist, and a neurologist.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant's orthopaedic surgeon had already provided extensive commentary and rebuttal to the plaintiff's physiatrist's report, and the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence explaining why a further examination by a physiatrist was necessary to ensure trial fairness.

The plaintiff injured her tailbone after hitting a hidden chunk of ice while sliding down a snow slide at a winter festival operated by the defendants.

She brought an action under the Occupiers' Liability Act, alleging the defendants failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the slide was safe.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the defendants met the standard of care by having staff monitor the slide, direct traffic, and fill in gaps in the snow.

The court held that requiring the defendants to detect and remove a small, buried piece of ice would impose a standard of perfection rather than reasonableness.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action against the respondent doctors.

The appellants alleged negligence in the administration of an epidural anaesthetic during childbirth, claiming it caused a dural tear and nerve damage resulting in ongoing pain.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding no dural tear or nerve damage, and that the claim was barred by the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings of fact were supported by the evidence and not tainted by palpable and overriding error.