Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 30 MARCH 2016

Chew V Munoz: Failure To Follow Rule 53.03 Timelines Prevented Defence IME

A recent decision, Chew v Munoz et al, 2016 ONSC 1511, highlights the importance of requiring defendants to schedule independent medical examinations (IME) so that the reports...

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

A recent decision, Chew v Munoz et al, 2016 ONSC 1511, highlights the importance of requiring defendants to schedule independent medical examinations (IME) so that the reports will be served within the timelines mandated by the Rules of Civil Procedure. A failure to do so can result in the court refusing to order the plaintiff to attend the IME, even if it is the defendant's first request for one.

In Chew, the defendant, Intact Insurance, sought an order compelling the plaintiff to attend an IME with a psychiatrist, Dr. Lawrie Reznek. The IME was scheduled for 3 weeks prior to the pre-trial conference, and was the first IME that Intact had requested of the plaintiff.

The action arose from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on May 11, 2010. Ms. Chew commenced an action against the defendant driver and owner, who were insured under a policy with only a $200,000.00 limit. Ms. Chew therefore also named her own insurer, Intact, pursuant to the underinsured

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from