Dr. Nicholson

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order compelling the plaintiff to attend a psychiatric defence medical examination after the plaintiff had already attended defence medical assessments with an orthopaedic specialist and a neuropsychologist.

The defendants argued that the neuropsychological assessment did not substitute for a psychiatric evaluation, particularly in light of references in the report suggesting potential psychiatric issues.

The court held that the parties had effectively agreed that the plaintiff would attend either a neuropsychological or psychiatric defence examination but not both, and the defendants had already exercised that option.

In the absence of medical evidence showing the plaintiff was receiving psychiatric treatment or requiring psychiatric assessment, the allegations in the statement of claim alone were insufficient to justify an additional defence medical.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits from the insurer.

The insurer terminated weekly income benefits after 156 weeks, relying on surveillance videotape and a medical report.

The applicant sought ongoing weekly income benefits, supplementary medical and rehabilitation expenses, and a special award.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's back pain was caused by a combination of the accident, pregnancies, endometriosis, and deconditioning.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant was disabled from suitable employment at the 156-week mark but would have been capable of returning to work had she continued her exercise program.

Weekly income benefits were awarded for an additional six months.

Claims for child care, physiotherapy, continuing education, and a special award were dismissed.