Dr. Perry Tepperman

The defendant and statutory third party brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to attend in-person defence medical examinations, including physiatry assessments for both plaintiffs and a psychiatric assessment for one plaintiff, after the action had been set down for trial.

The court granted leave under Rule 48.04(1), finding that the plaintiffs' late delivery of numerous expert reports and medical records demonstrating a significant and unexpected deterioration in their conditions constituted a substantial change in circumstances.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to attend the requested examinations to ensure trial fairness and allow the defendants an adequate opportunity to meet the plaintiffs' case.

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.

The applicant, a 70-year-old pedestrian, was struck by a truck and sustained soft tissue injuries to her left shoulder and back.

The insurer terminated her statutory accident benefits in February 1997.

The applicant sought ongoing other disability benefits and rehabilitation benefits for case management services.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a partial inability to carry on a normal life until March 1998, at which point her condition had stabilized such that she could perform most of her ordinary household tasks.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for case management services, finding that the applicant's situation was not sufficiently complex to warrant a case manager given the support she already received from family, friends, and medical professionals.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until returning to heavy physical work.

Ten months later, he stopped working due to back pain and sought reinstatement of benefits, claiming the disability resulted from the accident.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the new disability was a work-related repetitive strain injury.

The arbitrator agreed with the insurer on causation, dismissing the claim for income replacement benefits.

However, because the insurer unilaterally terminated payment for medical and rehabilitation treatments without following the mandatory dispute resolution procedures under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, the arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay for those treatments up to the date it formally notified the providers of the negative assessment results, plus a 25% special award for unreasonable withholding.