In Galea v. Firsker,  ONSC 1666 (S.C.J.), there is an interesting twist to the usual motion to compel the plaintiff to attend a second defence medical examination.
The plaintiff alleged soft tissue injuries. The defendant's first defence medical with a neurologist was obtained prior to the plaintiff serving any reports. After being served with reports by an orthopedic surgeon and a physiatrist, the defence sought to have the plaintiff examined by a physiatrist.
McDermot J. ordered the plaintiff to attend the defence medical. Even though there was an element of "buyer's remorse" in the defendant's request for a second assessment, denying the request would work an injustice, as the defendant would have no way to respond to the plaintiff's medical evidence. The fact that there was no affidavit from the neurologist, there was no change in circumstances and there was a possibility the trial may have to be adjourned, the primary concern was trial fairness.
The decision in Galea seems to follow the recent case law where the emphasis is on trial fairness above other factors.