Dr. P. Comper

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, who claims over $4 million in damages following a motor vehicle accident, to attend independent medical examinations by a psychiatrist, neurologist, physiatrist, and vocational evaluator.

The plaintiff opposed the assessments, arguing they were unnecessary and duplicative.

The court granted the motion, finding that given the complex medical issues, including alleged traumatic brain injury, chronic pain, and significant loss of income claims, trial fairness dictated that the defendants be permitted to have the plaintiff assessed by these specialists to respond to the plaintiff's expert evidence.

The court also admonished plaintiff's counsel for inappropriately attempting to impose conditions directly on the defendants' proposed assessors.

In a motor vehicle accident tort action, the defendants brought a motion to amend their statement of defence, remove the plaintiff's counsel from the record, compel the plaintiff to attend independent medical examinations (IMEs), and stop the plaintiff's counsel from communicating with the IME evaluators.

The court allowed the factual amendments to the statement of defence but struck proposed paragraphs alleging the plaintiff was using her legal training to exaggerate her claims, finding them scandalous.

The court refused to remove the plaintiff's counsel, noting his potential evidence as her former law professor was tangential.

Finally, the court ordered the plaintiff to attend the IMEs without conditions and directed her counsel to cease imposing terms on the defendants' medical experts.