Dr. William A. Fulton

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the moving defendants sought an order compelling the plaintiff to attend four independent medical examinations, including assessments by an occupational therapist, psychiatrist, neuropsychologist, and diabetes specialist.

The court considered the principles governing additional medical examinations under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 33.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing trial fairness and the defendants’ entitlement to respond to expert evidence served by the plaintiff.

The court held that psychiatric, neuropsychological, and occupational therapy assessments were justified to allow the defendants to fairly respond to the plaintiff’s psychological injury and future care cost claims.

However, the request for an examination by a diabetes specialist was denied due to insufficient evidence establishing the need for an in‑person assessment.

Conditions were imposed regarding scheduling, transportation, and accommodations to reduce the burden on the plaintiff.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) after being terminated from her employment more than five years following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the claim was statute-barred, having issued a clear denial of IRBs shortly after the accident when the applicant returned to work.

The arbitrator found that the insurer's initial denial was valid and triggered the two-year limitation period, which had long expired.

Furthermore, the arbitrator held that the applicant failed to comply with her statutory obligations to notify the insurer of her change in circumstances and to provide requested information, without a reasonable excuse.

The applicant was therefore precluded from proceeding to arbitration on her IRB claim.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits for over 156 weeks.

The insurer terminated benefits, and an arbitrator upheld the termination, finding the appellant did not meet the post-156 week test of being continuously prevented from engaging in suitable employment.

On appeal, the appellant argued the arbitrator erred in law by focusing on whether she suffered a head injury, relying on hearsay evidence, and failing to properly analyze suitable employment options.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding the causation issue was properly before the arbitrator, the reliance on hearsay was permissible, and the arbitrator's conclusions were supported by the evidence.