Rosemary Cosentino

The defendant brought a motion seeking two orders: a defence medical examination with an orthopaedic surgeon and an in-home cost of care assessment with an occupational therapist.

The court dismissed the request for the orthopaedic examination, finding it would merely corroborate an existing physiatrist's report and was not necessary for trial fairness.

However, the court granted the request for the in-home cost of care assessment, noting significant changes in the plaintiff's condition and living circumstances since the last report, and that the assessment was necessary for the defendant to fairly meet the plaintiff's substantial future cost of care claim, particularly regarding psychological and psychiatric impacts not fully covered by previous physical assessments.

In a motor vehicle personal injury action, the defendant brought a motion concerning undertakings, refusals, and production from non-parties following examinations for discovery.

The defendant sought disclosure of defence medical reports and settlement particulars from the plaintiff’s prior motor vehicle litigation.

The court held that defence medical reports obtained in prior litigation are subject to the deemed undertaking rule under Rule 30.1 and cannot be disclosed without leave of the court or consent of the original producing party.

The court also confirmed that settlement amounts and particulars from prior litigation are protected by settlement privilege and were not relevant in the circumstances, particularly where the accidents were years apart.

The contested disclosure requests were denied, and the plaintiff was awarded costs.