In Low v. Clarke,  OJ. No. 1703 (S.C.J.), the defendant brought a motion seeking to compel the plaintiff to attend a further defence medical with a neurologist.
The plaintiff was examined by a neurologist, Dr. Upton. Following the examination, the plaintiff served over 400 photographs of the plaintiff post accident. According to Justice Glithero, the photographs appeared to show the plaintiff in various physical activities that were inconsistent with what she had previously reported to doctors. The defendant filed a letter by Dr. Upton stating that a further examination would be important and useful to his opinion at trial.
Justice Glithero cited with approval a number of factors from Bonello v. Taylor, 2010 ONSC 5723:
1. The request may be legitimate where there is evidence the plaintiff's condition has changed or deteriorated. Justice Glithero added to this factor: where new evidence is disclosed and is material to the opinion and to any proper assessment of the extent and nature of injuries sustained.
2. Trial fairness should be the guiding principle.
3. Ordering further examinations may be just where they are necessary to enable the defendant to fairly investigate and call reasonable responding evidence at trial.
Justice Glithero allowed the motion and ordered a further examination. Although these types of motion are largely fact specific, it is important to remember the guiding principle of fairness when deciding what evidence to present to the court.