Dr. Young

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend defence medical examinations in Toronto.

The plaintiff, who resides near Thunder Bay, objected on the basis that his injuries from a motor vehicle accident rendered him medically unable to travel.

After reviewing expert evidence, including a jointly retained neurosurgeon's report and evidence of the plaintiff's extensive recent travel, the court found the plaintiff was medically able to travel.

The plaintiff was ordered to attend the examinations in Toronto, without prejudice to his right to bring a subsequent motion regarding COVID-19 concerns.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident brought a preliminary motion to exclude photographs of vehicle damage at trial.

The plaintiff argued the photographs were irrelevant since liability was admitted, and that admitting them without expert biomechanical evidence would invite unguided speculation by the jury that minor vehicle damage equates to minor injury.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the photographs were relevant to causation and admissible without expert evidence, as causation is a matter of common sense.

The court noted that a jury instruction would be given to clarify that serious injuries can still result from low-impact collisions.

The defendant brought an urgent motion to compel the plaintiff to attend two independent medical examinations (physiatry and psychological) shortly before trial.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing it was brought too late.

The court granted the request for the physiatry examination, finding that the plaintiff's late service of a physiatry expert report constituted a substantial change in circumstances warranting a responding report.

However, the court dismissed the request for a psychological examination, as the plaintiff had not served a psychological expert report and the defendant had long been aware of the psychological claims.

Costs of $3,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.

The parties sought clarification of a previous order regarding the conditions of the plaintiff's independent medical examinations.

The court issued supplementary reasons clarifying that the prohibition on using a questionnaire in advance of the assessment does not preclude the use of psychometric testing forms.

Furthermore, the condition that the plaintiff's health records not be disclosed to anyone other than defence counsel does not prevent the expert from utilizing administrative staff or a psychometrist.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident when she hit her head on a streetcar.

She applied for non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, housekeeping benefits, and the cost of medical assessments.

The arbitrator found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she continued to travel, live independently, and engage in social activities, and therefore denied the non-earner benefits.

The arbitrator awarded $1,560.97 for attendant care services (hair and foot care) and granted the withheld housekeeping benefits, accepting her explanation for the delayed disability certificates.

The claims for the cost of medical assessments were dismissed for lack of evidence.

During a medical malpractice trial, the defendants brought a motion under s. 12 of the Ontario Evidence Act seeking leave to call more than three expert witnesses.

The case involved allegations that an emergency room physician negligently failed to recognize stroke symptoms and delayed transfer for specialized care, allegedly resulting in quadriplegia.

The court considered factors relating to duplication, fairness between parties, necessity of additional expert evidence, and litigation cost.

Finding that the issues concerned only standard of care and causation and that three experts were sufficient to address them, the court concluded that allowing additional experts would create unnecessary duplication and disadvantage the plaintiffs.

Leave to call more than three medical experts was therefore refused.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiffs were awarded $137,000 plus interest, the court determined costs.

The plaintiffs' recovery exceeded the defendant's offer to settle of $125,000.

The court found the plaintiffs were the successful parties and awarded them partial indemnity costs.

After reducing fees for duplication and disallowing disbursements for experts who did not testify, the court awarded the plaintiffs $322,500 in costs.

The applicant sought her expenses of the arbitration following a successful claim for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer did not dispute entitlement but challenged the disbursements claimed for the attendance of two expert witnesses.

The arbitrator found the legal fees reasonable and reduced the expert witness attendance fees to comply with the maximum hourly rate prescribed by the Expense Regulation under the Insurance Act.

The applicant was awarded total expenses of $11,526.32.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence, revoking his license, and imposing a $25,000 costs award.

The misconduct stemmed from his failure to supervise an EEG clinic where a technician infected numerous patients with Hepatitis B. The Divisional Court upheld the misconduct findings but found the penalty of license revocation unreasonable, as the appellant posed no risk practicing solely as a neurologist.

The court substituted a two-year suspension and a lifetime ban from acting as a medical director, while upholding the costs award.