Judges must decide cases on their merits rather than strictly following procedural timelines: court
The Ontario Superior Court has ruled that the plaintiff in a personal injury case must undergo a psychological assessment, emphasizing fairness and the defendants' right to respond to the plaintiff's psychological damages claim.
The court highlighted that judges must decide cases on their merits rather than strictly following procedural timelines, especially in complex personal injury litigation with significant damages.
The case arose from a rear-end collision at a stop sign on Western University's campus in November 2017. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was an undergraduate student. She has since completed her degree and is pursuing a master's while working. She claimed that chronic impairments from the accident altered her academic and career trajectory, preventing her from pursuing a PhD. Her diagnoses include chronic pain, post-concussive syndrome, mild traumatic brain injury, adjustment disorder, anxiety, and depression. The statement of claim initially sought $2.5 million in damages, but a recently served economic loss report projected her losses between $1.6 million and $2.5 million.
The plaintiff has served multiple expert reports in psychology, neuropsychology, vocational analysis, and economic loss. The defendants have conducted assessments in neuropsychology and physiatry and have scheduled additional evaluations.
The defendants argued that a psychological assessment was necessary to address the plaintiff's psychological damages claim. They submitted that the report's late service would not prejudice the proceedings, particularly given the plaintiff's recent service of four additional expert reports close to the 90-day pre-trial deadline. They contended that the delay in arranging the assessment was due to strategic case management rather than a lack of diligence.
The plaintiff opposed the motion, stating that the request violated procedural rules regarding expert report deadlines. She argued that an updated assessment from her expert would likely be necessary to respond to the report, creating a risk of trial delay. She also claimed that the evaluation was unnecessary because a neuropsychological expert retained by the defendants had already addressed the psychological aspects of her claim.
The Superior Court ruled in favour of the defendants, finding that fairness required allowing the assessment. Both parties had failed to comply with procedural rules requiring an agreed schedule for expert reports. The court determined that the defendants had not been negligent in their timing of assessments and that the previous neuropsychological assessment did not fully address the plaintiff's psychological diagnoses. Given the significant damages claimed, the court concluded that the defendants should have the opportunity to challenge the psychological component of the claim.
While the plaintiff's expert may need to provide an updated opinion, the court found no clear evidence that this would delay the trial. There will be approximately five months between the anticipated service of the defence report and the trial date, allowing sufficient time for a response.
