In D’Eon v. Hosseini, 2020 ONSC 7500, the court ordered the plaintiff’s lawyer to not communicate with medical experts retained by the defendants’ lawyer.
The defendants’ lawyer had scheduled the plaintiff to attend a neuropsychology assessment. Prior to attending the assessment, the plaintiff’s lawyer wrote a lengthy letter to the expert setting out several conditions and advising the expert of acts which would constitute professional misconduct.
The plaintiff’s lawyer also told the expert that he was concerned with the report being “ghostwritten” or altered by third parties. Further, the plaintiff’s lawyer, referring to the Professional Misconduct Regulation, asked the expert to not prepare any supplementary reports or addenda without obtaining further written consent from the plaintiff.
Master Josefo stated that the letter was “extremely heavy and high-handed in its various admonishments and diktats; and fairly would be perceived as threatening in tone and content”.
The defence expert ultimately declined to examine the plaintiff. The expert believed that the plaintiff’s lawyer’s direct contact was inappropriate and that his demands were untenable.
The defendants’ lawyer then retained another neuropsychology expert, and the plaintiff’s lawyer wrote a similar letter to this expert. Master Josefo found this letter to be equally inappropriate.
Master Josefo indicated that the party requesting the medical examination gets to set the terms. If there is disagreement on the terms, a motion should be brought to the court.
Master Josefo stated that “it is frankly improper for the plaintiff to attempt to impose terms on the defendants’ experts”. Therefore, he ordered all such communications from the plaintiff’s lawyer to cease.