[28]       The Defendant called two expert witnesses to refute Ms. Mamado’s claims: Dr. Rajka Soric, a physiatrist, and Dr. Lawrie Reznek, a psychiatrist. Aside from the fact that neither expert addressed the threshold in their testimony, the evidence from both witnesses contains serious flaws:

Dr. Rajka Soric:

•        Dr. Soric misread Ms. Mamado’s pre-accident medical history. She was convinced that in May 2010 Dr. Peck had noted that the plaintiff had “intractable” back pain before the accident, when in fact the note read “intermittent”. Dr. Soric conceded this error most grudgingly, and then insisted the error was irrelevant to her conclusion despite having previously emphasized it in her testimony;

•        She had no recollection of how much time she spent reviewing Ms. Mamado’s brief and preparing her report;

•        Several of the tests she claimed to have performed were not documented in her report;

•        Dr. Soric appeared indignant when it was revealed that out of her income last year, which was in the range of $450,000 – $470,000, the majority came from assessments for defence lawyers and insurance companies. (She has never testified on behalf of a plaintiff, except on one occasion when the plaintiff also happened to be her patient). Incredibly, she is of the view that she can be seen as entirely neutral no matter to whom she owes much of her livelihood.

Dr. Lawrie Reznek:

•        It is curious that the Defendants referred Ms. Mamado to Dr. Reznek, a psychiatrist, when none of her treating practitioners ever referred her to a psychiatrist and their own expert, Dr. Soric, recommended that she be seen by a psychologist;

•        Dr. Reznek administered the SIMS test to Ms. Mamado (designed to detect malingering), and she scored 19. As her score was only slightly over the threshold of 16 (out of 75), he could not say on a balance of probabilities that it suggested exaggeration; he also admitted that her learning disability could have affected her performance on the test, and there are more extensive tests to detect malingering which he did not perform;

•        Dr. Reznek said the only sure way to detect malingering is if you observe the claimant doing something she says she cannot; significantly, the Defendant did not provide him with any of the surveillance conducted;

•        As for the “three strikes” he relied upon to conclude Ms. Mamado was exaggerating her symptoms, in cross-examination he agreed that (1) he would view anyone as suspicious who may be injured in an accident and end up before him for a medical-legal assessment; (2) he overstated her physical complaints, as she acknowledged some were “not constant” and that her pain was variable; and (3) he read Dr. Peck’s pre-accident note as stating she had “10” months of back pain, when in fact Dr. Peck wrote that she had a “few” months of back pain;

•        He asserted repeatedly that if, as Ms. Mamado claimed, the accident triggered her depression and stress disorder, one should have seen evidence of that within the first three months following the accident. Then, in cross-examination, he admitted that in fact there was such evidence, as in January 2011 – two months after the accident – Dr. Andrew Shaul, a psychologist, documented that Ms. Mamado was suffering from depression, anxiety and other accident related symptoms. This error significantly eroded his opinion;

•        Even though half of his time and two thirds of his annual income (of approximately $400,000) is devoted to medical-legal work for defendants, he insisted that does not influence him “in any way”.

[29]       Even with those flaws, the core evidence from Drs. Soric and Reznek in fact supports the plaintiff. Dr. Soric agreed that Ms. Mamado was suffering from chronic pain. Although she would describe it more as a chronic pain “sensation” than a disorder, she allowed that a chronic pain sensation can be disabling and can prevent a person from returning to work or going to school.