Here is a useful case in compelling a plaintiff to attend an IME with an occupational therapist.
Moore v. Wakim, 2010 ONSC 1991 (CanLii)
The defendant sought to compel the plaintiff to attend a Future Care Cost Assessment with an occupational therapist. The plaintiff had already undergone an orthopedic IME and a psychiatric IME.
Justice Howden ordered the assessment. The plaintiff had served a Future Care Cost report alleging attendant care potentially exceeding $2,000,000. Justice Howden held that the court has inherent jurisdiction to exercise its discretion in ordering assessments and it is not necessary to show that the assessment is a "diagnostic aid". There is a line of cases which stand for the principle that an assessment by someone who is not a health practitioner (such as an occupational therapist) must be necessary as a diagnostic aid to assist a health practitioner complete his or her report. Justice Howden accepted that the report was vital to the final result in the case since future care was a principal issue.
Cases such as Moore are helpful in obtaining reports to respond to the plaintiff. Such reports can be ordered under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act as "diagnostic aids", but may also be ordered pursuant to the Court's inherent discretion.