Worthman v. Assessmed Inc. et al [Indexed as: Worthman v. Assessmed Inc.]
80 O.R. (3d) 249
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court,
O'Driscoll, Gravely and Power JJ.
March 9, 2006
Actions -- Bars -- Witness immunity -- Insurer denying plaintiff's claim for weekly income replacement benefits under Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule after receiving report from doctor who performed compulsory third party examination -- Doctor testifying and his report being filed at subsequent arbitration -- Arbitrator subsequently ruling that plaintiff was entitled to income replacement benefits -- Plaintiff bringing action against doctor and company for which he performed examinations claiming damages for bad faith, intentional interference with economic relations, inducing breach of contract, injurious falsehood and negligence -- Motion judge correctly dismissing defendants' motion for summary judgment on basis that there were many genuine issues which could only be determined at trial -- If plaintiff's allegations were proven it would be contrary to public policy to clothe defendants with absolute privilege or witness immunity.
Civil procedure -- Summary judgment -- Insurer denying plaintiff's claim for weekly income replacement benefits under Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule after receiving report from doctor who performed compulsory third party examination -- Doctor testifying and his report being filed at subsequent arbitration -- Arbitrator subsequently ruling that plaintiff was entitled to income replacement benefits -- Plaintiff bringing action against doctor and company for which he performed examinations claiming damages for bad faith, intentional interference with economic relations, inducing breach of contract, injurious falsehood and negligence -- Motion judge correctly dismissing defendants' motion for summary judgment on basis that there were many genuine issues which could only be determined at trial -- Legal duty owed by defendants to plaintiff might be broader in context of mechanism for resolution of contested claims for no-fault benefits -- If plaintiff's allegations were proven it would be contrary to public policy to clothe defendants with absolute privilege or witness immunity. [page 250]
The plaintiff, who had applied to her insurer for statutory accident benefits, including a weekly income replacement benefit under s. 7 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule ("SABS"), following a motor vehicle accident, was required by the insurer pursuant to [s. 65(1)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-