Can a plaintiff be ordered to submit to a medical examination by both a psychologist and a psychiatrist?

In Clarfield v. Crown Life Insurance Company [2000] OJ No. 960, Kiteley J. of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused an application to direct the plaintiff to submit to a medical examination by both a psychologist and a psychiatrist. In dismissing the motion, Kiteley J. cited these reasons: (i) the insufficiency of the evidentiary basis; (ii) the defendant had known for a considerable period of time that the plaintiff was being treated by a psychiatrist, but had failed to take steps to have him examined by a psychiatrist of the defendant’s choosing until just prior to trial; (iii) the defendant had earlier requested the plaintiff to submit to examinations by both a psychologist and a psychiatrist and had been refused. The defendant then chose to have the plaintiff examined by a psychologist. That examination was undertaken by consent. Following the psychologist’s examination, the defendant asked again that the plaintiff submit to an examination by a psychiatrist, but had been refused; (iv) if the plaintiff were examined by a psychiatrist of the defendant’s choosing, prejudice would result for the plaintiff in view of the closeness to trial. The plaintiff would be unable to adequately respond to the defence expert’s report; and (v) the defendant had failed to mention his desire for a psychiatric examination during the case management process, so that the timetable established for the case to proceed to trial did not allow for such an examination. V. ANALYSIS