T. Asselin

The plaintiff was struck by a vehicle and claimed complex injuries including a traumatic brain injury.

The plaintiff served three expert reports and agreed to attend three corresponding defence medical examinations.

The defendant brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to attend a fourth examination with a neurologist.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff had been treated by multiple neurologists who might be called as participant experts at trial to offer opinions on causation.

To ensure trial fairness and level the playing field, the defendant was entitled to a responding neurological examination.

The defendant insurer brought a motion to strike part of a statement of claim that pleaded the defendant’s revenue and assets in support of a claim for punitive damages arising from the alleged wrongful cancellation of a life insurance policy.

The court considered Rules 25.06(1) and 25.11(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Applying the principles from Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., the court held that a defendant’s financial circumstances are only relevant to punitive damages in limited circumstances, none of which were pleaded.

Because no link was alleged between the defendant’s financial strength and the alleged misconduct, the pleading was irrelevant and risked expanding discovery unnecessarily.

The impugned sentence was therefore struck as frivolous and vexatious.