Frank E. McNally

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend a further independent psychiatric examination.

The plaintiff had previously attended an examination, but due to an administrative error, was examined by the wrong doctor (the intended doctor's brother).

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that a further examination was unnecessary and would cause him prejudice due to a real risk of harm, as he had a history of suicidal ideation and hospitalizations following previous assessments.

The court found that the further examination was necessary and fair, as the defendants had a right to an expert opinion from a specialist of their choice.

The court ordered the examination to proceed in Ottawa, with the condition that the plaintiff's treating psychiatrist be available immediately afterward to mitigate any risk of harm.

The respondent was sued after his son was injured while driving a go-kart on a private track.

The respondent sought coverage and a defence from his automobile insurer.

The insurer brought a motion to determine whether a go-kart is an 'automobile' under the standard Ontario automobile insurance contract.

The motion judge found that a go-kart is an automobile because it is capable of being driven on a highway.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the proper question is whether the vehicle required motor vehicle insurance at the time and in the circumstances of the accident.

Because the go-kart was operated on a private track, it did not require insurance and was not an 'automobile' under the policy.