The order was varied on either of two grounds. Firstly under rule 59.06 I considered the subsequently discovered fact (the ending of adversity) and determined that the order that would have been made on January 4th had I known the correct state of the defendants’ adversity was a single neuropsychological examination on behalf of one or both defendants. Secondly the elimination of one of the neuropsychological assessments was an appropriate “consequence of the most serious nature” as stated by the court of appeal in Aecon v. Brampton arising out of the breach by the defendants of their obligation to immediately disclose the settlement agreement.[1]
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.