In the Sros (Elizabeth) Thi Thach v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the applicant provided her experts in the AB claim with a copy of the defence medical reports completed in the companion tort action. She refused to produce a copy of the defence medical reports to State Farm, the AB insurer in the arbitration. At the pre-hearing, the Arbitrator concluded that since the applicant’s experts had reviewed the defence medical reports and had relied upon them for their opinions, it would be unfair not to provide them to State Farm and their assessors. Director’s Delegate Blackman agreed. He found that the opinions of the applicant’s experts were based, in part, on the defence medical reports and therefore the applicant, having provided them to her experts, could not now withhold them.
State Farm also brought a concurrent motion to compel attendance at a section 42 neuropsychological assessment. The Arbitrator found it was reasonable and necessary and in the interests of a fair hearing for the applicant undergo a neuropsychological assessment. He went on to find that he did not have the authority to require that the assessment be completed by a particular assessor. Director’s Delegate agreed that the assessment was reasonable and necessary but found that the arbitrator had the discretion to determine the reasonableness of a proposed medical practitioner.