The defendants brought a motion seeking an order to compel the plaintiff to attend a defence medical examination without the condition that the examining doctor obtain further consent for supplementary reports.
The plaintiff argued that such consent was required under the Health Care Consent Act, the Medicine Act, and the Regulated Health Professions Act, asserting that a supplementary report constituted a new report requiring fresh consent.
The court found that consent was not required, as the preparation of a supplementary report is not a "treatment" under the Health Care Consent Act.
Furthermore, Rule 33 and Section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act were deemed a complete code for court-ordered medical examinations, implying the ability to prepare supplementary reports.
The defendants' motion was granted without the plaintiff's requested condition, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs.
