2 total
Superior Court has inherent jurisdiction to order non-medical examinations of plaintiffs to ensure trial fairness.
The plaintiffs in two separate personal injury actions appealed interlocutory orders requiring them to undergo examinations by non-medical practitioners (a vocational assessor and a chiropractor).
The plaintiffs argued that section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act constitutes a complete code for such examinations, precluding orders for non-medical practitioners.
The Divisional Court held that section 105 does not completely occupy the field and that a Superior Court judge has inherent jurisdiction to order an examination by a non-medical practitioner where necessary to ensure trial fairness and justice.
Applying this test, the court dismissed the appeal in the Ziebenhaus action, finding the vocational assessment was necessary to meet the plaintiff's case.
However, the court allowed the appeal in the Jack action, finding the defendants failed to demonstrate that the functional abilities evaluation was necessary.
Applicant deemed catastrophically impaired under both physical and psychological criteria following severe bicycle accident.
The applicant was struck by a pickup truck while riding his bicycle, sustaining severe injuries to his left heel and ankle.
He applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment, which the insurer denied.
At arbitration, the arbitrator preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding that his need for two crutches and a short leg brace resulted in a 55% Whole Person Impairment under the AMA Guides.
Furthermore, the arbitrator accepted that the applicant's chronic pain and depression resulted in a Class 4 marked impairment in at least one area of functioning.
The arbitrator concluded that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under both paragraphs 2(1.2)(f) and (g) of the Schedule.