[11] The other defence medical witness was Dr. Debow who was a psychiatrist. I conclude that he was an advocate for the defence for the following reasons.
[12] Dr. Debow administered a “mini-mental status” exam to Ms. Parra on which he said she scored accurately. He agreed the Montreal Cognitive test is more complex and takes longer to administer. He was asked why he didn’t place some weight on Ms. Parras’ results on the Montreal Cognitive test, administered by an occupational therapist who was called as a defence expert, which showed some cognitive impairment. He responded that he was not sure of the qualifications of an occupational therapist to administer the test.
[13] Dr. Debow was asked why he didn’t place some weight on findings by a speech and language pathologist that Ms. Parra had severe cognitive impairment. Dr. Debow responded that he didn’t know what testing the speech and language pathologist was qualified to do and so he disregarded it.
[14] An impartial expert who didn’t know if prior, and potentially highly relevant, testing was valid would try to find out if it was. Dr. Debow was content to simply dismiss the testing out of hand.
[15] Dr. Debow testified that Ms. Parra told him she could only work 4-8 hours a week. It was pointed out to him in cross-examination that pre-accident she reported working 8-12 hours a day for six days a week. Dr. Debow was challenged as to how this difference (4-8 hours a week as opposed to 48 to 72 hours a week) could not be regarded as significant. Dr. Debow testified that was not a big difference from his perspective. He then proceeded to offer up that in a poor market an agent might not be busy and might not have any transactions for a month or two. Dr. Debow was obviously prepared to step way outside of his area of expertise to try to help the defence. As such, I place no weight on the evidence of Dr. Debow.