What is the evidentiary burden of a defence physiatrist and one more expert?

I do not think that the defendant has met the evidentiary burden. The evidence of the defence physiatrist and one more expert of the defendant’s choosing is more than enough to enable it to mount a proper defence in the circumstances of this particular case. It seems likely that the plaintiff will be able to make a case to the jury that he suffered some physical injury in the accident which has largely resolved, but has left him with lasting pain and depression. If the defendant has a report from its own physiatrist and one more expert, (probably in the field of psychology, but it is up to the defendant to say), it will be in a fair position to defend the claim. Nothing else needs to be done to make the playing field level. See Fehr v. Prior, [2006] O.J. No. 5244 (S.C.).