So what does happen when the evidence of the medical experts is challenged?
It starts with the regulatory Colleges in Ontario such as the College of Physicians and Surgeons who keep silent about complaints about the third-party vendors of ‘expert’ medical opinions for Ontario’s insurance companies. No matter how many complaints have gone into the Colleges, the information is quashed through private and confidential decisions about the quality of the work these for-hire ‘experts’ churn out by the thousands in respect to MVA victims, WSIB workers and Long Term Disability claims. http://www.fairassociation.ca/the-independent-medical-examination-imeie/
“When something untoward is discovered, matters settle, hearings are aborted, confidentiality clauses are placed into releases and no one hears what happened” Patrick Brown http://www.lawyersweekly-digital.com/lawyersweekly/3531?folio=18&pg=19#pg19
The public is mostly unaware that there are many incidences where insurers may inaccurately portray claimants because we rarely hear about what this book exposes–deceptive behaviour by some insurers against far too many legitimate claimants. We don’t hear about it because the very people who are denied, or had to fight for years to receive benefits, don’t have a public voice. Insurers know how to keep them quiet through the use of “gag” orders or privacy requirements when a settlement is reached. Also, they are too exhausted after their ordeal to want to talk about what they’ve experienced if they could. Those claimants undergoing the process are afraid to speak out because they inherently understand that they will likely jeopardize a successful resolution. Their lawyers also warn them not to speak out. Jokelee Vanderkop www.deniedbenefitclaims.com “So You Think You’re Covered! The Insurance Industry Rip-Off” (revised 2016 edition)
“The insurance company has a right to request information, but normally they tell you it’s required in order to continue benefits. In my case, they cut me off first. This is pure intimidation.” – Vanderkop to Ellen Roseman http://www.thestar.com/business/personal_finance/2015/02/10/writing-a-book-can-lead-to-repercussions-roseman.html
Protecting free speech – “According to Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General, this legislation “protects freedom of speech on matters of public interest” and will help “protect the rights of Ontario residents to speak out on public issues, without the fear of being faced with a strategic lawsuit, by allowing the courts to use a fast-track process to identify and dismiss strategic lawsuits quickly.” Alan Shanoff http://www.torontosun.com/2015/11/21/protecting-free-speech
Assessmed Inc. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., 2004 CanLII 28479 (ON SC), http://canlii.ca/t/1gkwm
 The relationship between insurer and insured is one which affects most members of our society. It has been the subject of substantial discussion, particularly since the advent of No-Fault Insurance.
 The program “Prove It If You Can” addressed that relationship. In that context, the plaintiffs’ role as assessors was discussed and commented upon.
 I am satisfied that the program concerned a matter of public interest, namely, the difficulties encountered by seriously injured persons claiming the payment of benefits from their insurance companies.
 Until the broadcast, the plaintiffs had excellent reputations in the insurance industry, that is to say, with insurance companies, insurance adjusters, and persons on the ‘defence side’ of personal injury claims. The plaintiffs were viewed by this insurance industry as assessors who provided objective, unbiased, detailed and timely reports.
 The claimants’ lawyers and their representatives did, on the other hand, view the plaintiffs as biased in favour of their insurer-clients. They were viewed as predisposed to support insurance companies in denying the claims of their insureds.
 My assessment of the evidence is that the plaintiffs had an excellent reputation with the insurers, but a poor reputation with the claimants’ representatives.
Assessmed Inc. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2006 CanLII 18619 (ON CA), http://canlii.ca/t/1nh53
 This is the appeal from that judgment. The appellants make two major attacks on it: first, that the trial judge erred in unduly narrowing the defamatory meaning of the broadcast; and second that the trial judge erred in a number of respects in applying the defence of fair comment. For the reasons that follow, I conclude that both attacks fail and the appeal must be dismissed.