[18] …On 29 May 2002, two psychologists, Dr. Marlin and Dr. Mok both of Odyssey Health Services, examined Hedstrom. They concluded that Hedstrom was not totally disabled with respect to gainful employment. In a report to Manulife made on the same date, Odyssey opined that no objectively demonstrable or definable underlying disease or pathology had been identified to account for Hedstrom’s symptoms; that Hedstrom showed no evidence of any underlying psychopathology or psychological disorder to account for his symptoms; and that, the “presence of significant variations in the available history and reported events”, coupled with the other factors, led to their conclusion that Hedstrom was not totally disabled.
[19] Counsel for Hedstrom objected strenuously that the Odyssey report was inadmissible on the application. I would have little difficulty acceding to the objection if Manulife was attempting to tender the report as opinion evidence at trial. While the authors are qualified to express opinions about whether the testing disclosed any evidence of psychological disorder capable of explaining full disability, they went well beyond that function. In expressing opinions on medical matters far outside their expertise, as well as on the truthfulness and reliability of Hedstrom, the authors travelled well outside the permissible bounds of expert evidence.
[20] But the report was not prepared for admission into evidence as an expert opinion and Manulife seeks to rely on it for a different more limited purpose. Odyssey prepared the report to assist the claims-handler who had requested it. Manulife then relied on the report in deciding to terminate benefits. It became part of the claims file and is properly before the court to be considered in assessing the relative strengths and weaknesses of the legal positions of the parties.