Mr. Justice Michael Quigley has ordered that a neuropsychological assessment sought by a defendant in a motor vehicle case, be videotaped. His Honour had been advised that the neuropsychologist whom the defence had retained was not prepared to undertake the examination on this basis, but he nevertheless concluded that, in the circumstances of this case, the videotaping requirement was reasonable.
In Dempsey et al. v. Wax, counsel for the plaintiff, who was seeking to have the court order that the examination be vidoetaped, had introduced evidence of a previous neuropsychological assessment, done on behalf of the AB insurer. That examiner had concluded that the plaintiff’s level of intelligence was 18 points lower than expected and that “[m]emory and new learning abilities were more severely affected with general memory being some 24 points below expectancy”. As well, there was evidence from the plaintiff’s family physician, that “because of Ms. Dempsey’s slow processing, inattention, and poor memory, it would be preferable for the neuropsychological assessing to be videotaped”.
There was no suggestion, in this case, that the defence neuropsychologist had any “defence orientation”. Rather, in agreeing that the examination should be videotaped, Justice Quigley seems to have been concerned primarily with the integrity and reliability of the evidence at trial, given the memory problems from which the plaintiff was suffering.
It should be noted that counsel for the plaintiff had undertaken that any neuropsycholgical assessments of this plaintiff that he might schedule, would also be videotaped.