The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel production of a defence vocational assessment report following an examination of the injured plaintiff conducted by a vocational rehabilitation expert retained by the defendant municipality.
The defendant refused production, arguing the assessor was not a "health practitioner" within the meaning of s.105 of the Courts of Justice Act and therefore Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil Procedure did not require disclosure.
The court held that examinations conducted on consent are analogous to court‑ordered examinations under Rule 33.08 and therefore trigger the mandatory disclosure obligation in Rule 33.06.
The court further held that a party cannot avoid production simply by asserting that the assessor is not a statutory health practitioner or by electing not to rely on the report at trial.
The defendant was ordered to produce the report forthwith in the interests of fairness and full disclosure.
