The defendants brought a motion seeking an order compelling the plaintiff to attend a psychiatric defence medical examination after the plaintiff had already attended defence medical assessments with an orthopaedic specialist and a neuropsychologist.
The defendants argued that the neuropsychological assessment did not substitute for a psychiatric evaluation, particularly in light of references in the report suggesting potential psychiatric issues.
The court held that the parties had effectively agreed that the plaintiff would attend either a neuropsychological or psychiatric defence examination but not both, and the defendants had already exercised that option.
In the absence of medical evidence showing the plaintiff was receiving psychiatric treatment or requiring psychiatric assessment, the allegations in the statement of claim alone were insufficient to justify an additional defence medical.
The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
