William Alexander Gordon Simpson

The moving defendants sought summary judgment dismissing claims and cross‑claims arising from a motor vehicle collision where a driver turning left collided with an oncoming vehicle and pedestrians were injured.

The court considered whether there was a genuine issue requiring a trial under Rule 20.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The responding defendant argued the oncoming driver may have contributed to the accident by slowing or failing to keep a proper lookout.

The moving defendants relied largely on unsworn statements and an affidavit from counsel rather than firsthand evidence.

The court held the evidentiary record was insufficient and that a trier of fact could potentially find contributory negligence by the oncoming driver.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order requiring the plaintiff to undergo three defence medical assessments by a psychiatrist, a neurologist, and a neuropsychologist.

The appellants did not object to the neuropsychologist but challenged the other two.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the neurologist, finding the motion judge reasonably relied on the neuropsychologist's evidence that a neurological exam was necessary to determine organic brain injury.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding the psychiatrist, as there was no evidence explaining why a psychiatric assessment was warranted in addition to the other examinations.