What is the relevance of a proposed examination by an expert?

There is no evidence regarding the purpose of the proposed tests or assessment, the identification of the tests or assessment to be performed by the expert, or how the tests or assessment relate to a medical issue in the case. The fact that a particular medical specialist examined the plaintiff does not satisfy the required relevance threshold without some additional evidence that the proposed examination is relevant to a medical issue in the case (Chapell v. Marshall Estate [2001] O.J. No. 3009 (S.C.J.) at paras 14-15).

I find there is no evidence as to why the defence requires a second defence medical report as to the plaintiff’s physical injuries (Ebrani v. Citadel General Assurance [1998] O.J. No. 6297 (S.C.J.)). I find that the defendant has failed to satisfy the court that an assessment by and/or an opinion of a neuropsychologist or a physiatrist is relevant to a material issue in the case and the motion is denied.