P. Hosack

The plaintiff employee was injured while engaging in horseplay on the defendant employer's premises.

The WSIB ruled he was not in the course of employment, precluding WSIA benefits but allowing a civil action.

At the opening of trial, the defendant brought a motion to restrict the plaintiff's claim to occupier's liability, arguing the WSIB ruling precluded claims based on the employment relationship.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the WSIB ruling did not negate the plaintiff's common-law right to claim damages for negligence against the defendant as his employer.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the moving defendants sought an order compelling the plaintiff to attend four independent medical examinations, including assessments by an occupational therapist, psychiatrist, neuropsychologist, and diabetes specialist.

The court considered the principles governing additional medical examinations under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 33.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing trial fairness and the defendants’ entitlement to respond to expert evidence served by the plaintiff.

The court held that psychiatric, neuropsychological, and occupational therapy assessments were justified to allow the defendants to fairly respond to the plaintiff’s psychological injury and future care cost claims.

However, the request for an examination by a diabetes specialist was denied due to insufficient evidence establishing the need for an in‑person assessment.

Conditions were imposed regarding scheduling, transportation, and accommodations to reduce the burden on the plaintiff.