The defendant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that permitted a student-at-law to be present as a passive observer during a defence in-home future care costs assessment of the plaintiff, and that denied the defence expert's request to conduct a functional capacity evaluation.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the motions judge properly exercised his discretion under Rule 33.
The court held there were no conflicting decisions on the matter and no reason to doubt the correctness of the order to warrant granting leave under Rule 62.02(4).
