In Khatatbeh v. Quispe, 2022 ONSC 933, the defendant scheduled a defence medical examination with a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist asked the plaintiff to sign an authorization or release. The plaintiff refused to sign it on the basis that it required her to disclose any medical conditions or medical problems that she has.
Justice D.A. Wilson stated:
A Plaintiff must sign an authorization to the examining practitioner when attending an independent medical examination. Such an authorization allows the examiner to speak to the Plaintiff and review personal health records and thereafter, produce a report pursuant to Rule 53.03. Clearly, the history provided by a Plaintiff to the doctor is important and forms part of the foundation for the opinion that is rendered. In every case, a Plaintiff will be asked about his or her medical history and the problems he or she is currently experiencing. The authorization sought to be executed here for Dr. Weinstein simply sets that out; there is nothing unfair about including it in the consent form.
Justice Wilson continued:
If the Plaintiff fails to provide an accurate history or fails to advise the examining health care practitioner about all the current complaints related to the motor vehicle accident, the corrections can be made following the assessment. The execution of the authorization does nothing more than set out in writing the obligation of the Plaintiff to provide to the best of his/her ability an accurate medical history and a list of the injuries he/she relates to the accident and the current symptomology.
Therefore, the plaintiff was ordered to sign the authorization.