The defendants moved for an order requiring the plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident action to attend additional defence medical examinations by a physiatrist and a psychiatrist.
The defendants argued the plaintiff’s condition had changed and that trial fairness required further examinations because the plaintiff’s experts had examined her multiple times.
The court reviewed the governing principles under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 33.01–33.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding further defence medical examinations.
The court held that no material change in the plaintiff’s condition had been demonstrated and that the request largely amounted to an attempt to corroborate existing defence opinions.
Trial fairness did not require additional examinations, and the defendants had not provided sufficient evidentiary foundation to justify the order.
