The defendants brought a motion seeking an order compelling the plaintiff to undergo an in-home occupational therapy assessment in a personal injury action involving a substantial claim for future care costs.
The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that occupational therapists are not “health practitioners” under s. 105(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and that the proposed assessment was not required for diagnostic purposes.
The court reviewed conflicting authorities regarding whether non-medical expert assessments may be ordered only as diagnostic aids or under the court’s inherent jurisdiction in the interests of fairness.
Relying on Divisional Court authority recognizing the court’s inherent jurisdiction, the judge held that the assessment was appropriate to permit an independent evaluation of the plaintiff’s limitations and future care needs.
The motion was granted and the plaintiff was ordered to attend the in-home occupational therapy assessment.
