Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-00601949

DATE: 2022-02-09

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Ref'at Khatatbeh, Plaintiff

AND:

Lino Quispe, Defendant

BEFORE: D.A. Wilson J.

COUNSEL: Jamie Min, for the Plaintiff

David G. Merner, for the Defendant

HEARD via telephone: February 9, 2022

Endorsement

[1] This is a claim for damages for injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The matter appeared before me in trial scheduling court and the trial was set to proceed during the jury sittings in June 2023. A pretrial was arranged for May 10, 2023. Consistent with the practice in Toronto, a timetable for the service of expert reports was filed by counsel on consent. That timetable requires the Plaintiff expert reports to be served by August 31, 2022 and the defence expert reports by October 31, 2022.

[2] Mr. Merner, counsel for the Defendant, requested a case conference which I convened today. Ms. Min, the solicitor for the Plaintiff, was notified of the case conference and given the phone number to call in but she did not participate at 11:00. I therefore rescheduled the call for 11:30 and requested the trial coordinator contact Ms. Min to confirm the case conference was proceeding. The trial coordinator called and emailed the solicitor for the Plaintiff, but she did not participate in the call. I proceeded in her absence, as the matter is time sensitive.

[3] Mr. Merner advised that he has arranged an assessment with a psychiatrist, Dr. Weinstein, and requested confirmation of the Plaintiff’s attendance. The Plaintiff is asserting psychological and emotional injuries from the accident. Mr. Merner sent the standard release form from Dr. Weinstein’s office to be executed by the Plaintiff prior to the appointment next month. I have attached the consent as appendix A to this endorsement. I am advised that the solicitor for the Plaintiff indicated that the Plaintiff would not sign the release because it states that the Plaintiff will advise Dr. Weinstein of any medical conditions or medical problems she has. Mr. Merner wishes the assessment to proceed so he can comply with the timelines set out in the timetable that was filed.

[4] The issue of whether the Plaintiff will execute the authorization is not something that requires a motion before an Associate Judge. Indeed, our system is overburdened with motions in Toronto such that a date for a motion cannot be obtained before the fall 2022. This is a matter that can be determined in an expeditious fashion at a case conference, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 50.13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

[5] A Plaintiff must sign an authorization to the examining practitioner when attending an independent medical examination. Such an authorization allows the examiner to speak to the Plaintiff and review personal health records and thereafter, produce a report pursuant to Rule 53.03. Clearly, the history provided by a Plaintiff to the doctor is important and forms part of the foundation for the opinion that is rendered. In every case, a Plaintiff will be asked about his or her medical history and the problems he or she is currently experiencing. The authorization sought to be executed here for Dr. Weinstein simply sets that out; there is nothing unfair about including it in the consent form. If the Plaintiff fails to provide an accurate history or fails to advise the examining health care practitioner about all the current complaints related to the motor vehicle accident, the corrections can be made following the assessment. The execution of the authorization does nothing more than set out in writing the obligation of the Plaintiff to provide to the best of his/her ability an accurate medical history and a list of the injuries he/she relates to the accident and the current symptomology.

[6] The Plaintiff is to execute the authorization for Dr. Weinstein prior to attending the assessment.

Date: February 9, 2022

Appendix A