Michael Walter

The defendant in a long-term disability action brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to attend a psychiatric Independent Medical Evaluation (IME).

The plaintiff opposed, arguing she had already attended a pre-litigation psychiatric assessment with a different doctor.

The court held that the pre-litigation assessment did not constitute a first examination under section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act, giving the defendant a prima facie right to the requested IME.

Alternatively, the court found sufficient evidence of a change in circumstances to warrant a further examination.

The motion was granted.

The plaintiff moved for judgment on an accepted offer to settle, seeking a determination on the applicable prejudgment interest rate.

Shortly before the offer was accepted, an amendment to the Insurance Act came into force, reducing the prejudgment interest rate for non-pecuniary damages.

The plaintiff argued the amendment was substantive and did not apply retroactively, while the defendants argued it was procedural and did apply.

The court held that the amendment to the calculation of prejudgment interest was procedural in nature and therefore applied retroactively, resulting in the lower interest rate being applied to the settlement amount.