S. Dhami

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.

The defendants brought a motion for a further affidavit of documents and disclosure from a non-party insurer regarding an accident benefits settlement.

After the substantive issues were resolved, both parties sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendants alleged the plaintiffs misrepresented the settlement to deprive them of collateral benefit deductions.

The court declined to award costs to either party, finding that the alleged misrepresentation was pleaded in the amended statement of defence and should be determined by the trial judge.

The costs of the motion were reserved to the trial judge.