The defendants brought a motion seeking orders to compel the plaintiff, Mr. Smith, to attend a defence vocational assessment and a further oral discovery examination.
The plaintiffs opposed these requests and brought a cross-motion for document disclosure and undertakings.
The court granted the defendants' requests, finding that a vocational assessment was necessary for a fair comparison with the plaintiff's expert, and a further discovery was warranted due to the plaintiffs' belatedly disclosed theory of causation linking a second hand injury to the first.
The court also addressed the application of Rule 48.04, granting leave for the motion to proceed, and reserved on costs.