Dr. Ronald Fenton

The applicant insurer sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion to compel the plaintiff to attend three defence medical examinations and a future care assessment.

The motion judge had denied the examinations due to the insurer's failure to comply with the rules regarding the delivery of expert reports prior to pre-trial conferences.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's exercise of discretion under section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant, a visiting homemaker, was struck by a motor vehicle and received income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them, claiming she could return to work.

The applicant sought reinstatement of benefits, arguing she suffered from benign paroxysmal positional vertigo and soft tissue injuries preventing her from working.

The arbitrator found that while the soft tissue injuries did not prevent her from working, the vertigo caused a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment.

The applicant was awarded ongoing income replacement benefits but denied the cost of a multidisciplinary assessment.