In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiffs sought leave to amend their statement of claim to significantly increase claims for future care, housekeeping, and income loss.
The defendant did not oppose the amendment but sought orders compelling a further examination for discovery and requiring the plaintiff to attend a defence in-home occupational therapy assessment.
The court held the defendant had not met the requirements under Rule 31.09 to justify a further discovery because there was no evidence the plaintiff’s prior answers were incomplete or incorrect.
However, the court exercised its discretion to order a non‑medical occupational therapy assessment, finding that the plaintiff had placed functional limitations and significant future care costs in issue and fairness required the defendant be able to obtain comparable evidence.
The motion for further discovery was denied, but the defence occupational therapy assessment was ordered and costs were awarded partially to the defendant.
