The Court ordered the plaintiff to attend an occupational therapy examination arranged by the defendants under UCPR r 23.4, finding that the plaintiff's treating psychologist's report — based on an incorrect assumption of a four-hour assessment and lacking detail — was insufficient to establish that the examination would be unsafe. The Court held that where a plaintiff relies on their own OT report, the balance favours permitting the defendant to obtain a competing OT assessment, subject to protective conditions including a two-hour time limit and the presence of a support person.
The full text is available to signed-in members.