The defendant brought a motion seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to attend a further defence medical examination by a neurologist regarding Bell’s Palsy allegedly arising from a motor vehicle accident.
The plaintiff opposed the request, arguing that a second defence medical was unnecessary and would delay the scheduled pre-trial and trial.
The court considered the governing principles under Rule 33 and the Courts of Justice Act concerning further medical examinations and emphasized fairness and the need for each party to present appropriate expert evidence.
The court found that the defendant had no prior notice that Bell’s Palsy would be advanced as a causally related injury until a late-served medical report.
In the circumstances, fairness required permitting the defence an opportunity to assess the condition through a further examination.
