The defendant insurer brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to attend a defence medical examination by a new neurologist.
A previous order had granted an examination by a different neurologist, but that expert subsequently refused to provide a report due to workload and complexity.
The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing it was duplicitous and could jeopardize the upcoming trial date.
The court granted the motion, finding it would be unfair to require the defendant to proceed to trial without defence medical evidence, but imposed strict deadlines for the delivery of the expert report to preserve the trial date.
