Wendy Sokoloff

The plaintiffs sued their insurer for terminating statutory accident benefits based on reports from health care professionals retained by the insurer under s. 42 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

On discovery, the plaintiffs sought to ask questions that amounted to cross-examining these experts.

The motion judge held that the experts were not 'experts' within the meaning of Rule 31.06(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and thus the prohibition against cross-examination did not apply.

The Divisional Court allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the clear wording of Rule 31.06(3) covers experts engaged by a party for a purpose other than litigation, including s. 42 assessors.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the insurer.

In a preliminary motion on production, the applicant requested information on whether the insurer had conducted any surveillance upon which it did not intend to rely at the hearing.

The insurer objected, arguing the Dispute Resolution Practice Code did not require such production.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to produce the information, finding it might be relevant to the issues in dispute and that no prejudice would result to the insurer.