Skip to main content

Why Physical Examination Is Not Always Necessary for a "Balanced Playing Field"

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 7, independent medical exams, Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, demonstrating that a physical examination is not always necessary for parties to put themselves on a ‘balanced playing field‘ in a personal injury claim.
In this week’s case (De Sousa v. Bradaric) the Defendant appealed from a Master’s decision refusing to permit a second psychiatric independent medical exam of the Plaintiff.  You can click here for my original post discussing the initial applicaiton.
As previously summarized, the Plaintiff was injured in a 2003 collision which allegedly caused physical and psychiatric consequences.  In the course of the lawsuit the Defendants had the Plaintiff assessed by a psychiatrist of their choosing.  This psychiatrist (Dr. Davis) concluded that there was “no psychosis“.
Shortly after this the Plaintiff was admitted in hospital on multiple occasions.  She was ultimately diagnosed with “chronic paranoid schizophrenia” by her treating physicians.  These records were shared with Dr. Davis but despite the diagnosis from treating specialists he “rigidly and categorically rejected any diagnosis of a psychotic conditions“.  For this reason the Master refused to order a second examination.
In the appeal Mr. Justice Smith allowed the introduction of new evidence, specifically a further report from Dr. Davis indicating that he had a terminal illness and will not be able to participate in trial.  The Defendant’s argued that in these circumstances a further exam should be ordered.  Mr. Justice Smith found that while that could be the case, here it was not necessary because the Defendant had already received a report from their second psychiatrist who opined about the Plaintiff’s condition despite not physically examining her.   In dismissing the application the Court provided the following reasons:

[16] The question that arises on the new evidence, given the unavailability of Dr. Davis for trial, is whether the defendant needs a new psychiatric examination to be placed on that all important equal footing. For that purpose I turn to the report of Dr. Vallance that was before the master. This is of course a report that the defendant has, can rely upon at trial, and presumably Dr. Vallance will be available to be cross-examined on it.

[17] Dr. Vallance prefaces his report by stating:

I have not personally examined Ms. De Sousa. Consequently such opinions as I offer in this report are offered only on the understanding that such opinions are significantly limited in the weight that can be given to them absent such an examination.

As a general statement, that is undoubtedly true. However, it must be reviewed in the context of this case and the issues that will be before the court on which medical opinion evidence will be necessary.

[18] Dr. Vallance states that, based on his review of the records, there is no doubt about the fact that the plaintiff now suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. So he does not suggest that he needs to conduct an independent medical examination to confirm or exclude that diagnosis.

[19] The real issue in this case is whether that condition was caused or contributed to by the accident. On that point Dr. Vallance gives a firm opinion. He states:

I believe that if her physical condition and such anxiety as she had arising from the traumata that she experienced had been significant stressors timing the onset of that first episode, then her psychotic illness would have developed sooner rather than later. I believe that her psychosis began out of the blue, as it usually does, and at an age that is usual for the appearance of a first episode.

He then says:

Such diagnoses as paranoid schizophrenia often reveal themselves slowly over time, and therefore, based on the longitudinal history rather than cross-sectional examination, earlier episodes are often diagnosed as other conditions until the full picture is revealed.

[20] Thus on the crucial causation issue, Dr. Vallance’s own report does not support the suggestion that an independent medical examination is needed to place the parties on an equal footing. Indeed he specifically questions the usefulness of a single medical examination and stresses the need to review the entire history, as he has already done, based on the records.

[21] There is also evidence before me from the plaintiff’s family physician that in light of the plaintiff’s present psychiatric condition, a further medical examination at this time will actually be harmful to her health. That prejudice to the plaintiff must, in my view, be considered, although if I thought that a further psychiatric examination was necessary to put the parties on an equal footing, I would have said that means would need to be devised to manage that risk, perhaps with the assistance of the treating psychiatrist.

[22] However, that is not the case here. It appears to me from the evidence of Dr. Vallance that the defendants are in as good a position as they are likely to be to advance their position that this severe psychiatric condition is causally unrelated to the motor vehicle accident. I am not satisfied that a further psychiatric examination will add anything to the matter or will be of any further assistance for the court.

Court Holds Rule 15 Costs Cap Can Apply to Trials Prosecuted Outside of the Fast Track

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, BCSC Civil Rule 14, BCSC Civil Rule 15, BCSC Civil Rule 7. 44 Comments on Court Holds Rule 15 Costs Cap Can Apply to Trials Prosecuted Outside of the Fast Track


Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Chilliwack Registry, addressing whether the Rule 15 Costs ‘cap‘ can apply to non-Rule 15 lawsuits that proceed to trial but result in judgement below $100,000.  In short the Court ruled that the cap should apply in these circumstances.
In last week’s case (Affleck v. Palmer) the Plaintiff sued the Defendants for damages.  The claim was not filed under the fast track provisions of Rule 15.  The case proceeded by way of summary trial under Rule 9-7 and was successful.  The judgement is unclear of the damages awarded but they were apparently over $25,000 under $100,000.  The summary trial lasted one day.
The Plaintiff brought an application for lump sum costs of $8,000 under Rule 15-1(15).  Mr. Justice Brown agreed that this was appropriate even though the lawsuit was not filed under the provisions of Rule 15.  In reaching this conclusion the Court provided the following reasons:

[4] Rule 14-1(1)(f) states that costs payable under the Civil Rules or by court order must be assessed as party and party costs under Appendix B, unless:

…

(f)         subject to subrule (10) of this rule,

(i)         the only relief granted in the action is one or more of money, real property, a builder’s lien and personal property and the plaintiff recovers a judgment in which the total value of the relief granted is $100,000 or less, exclusive of interest and costs, or

(ii)        the trial of the action was completed within 3 days or less,

in which event, Rule 15-1(15) to (17) applies to the action unless the court orders otherwise.

[5] There are other exceptions under Rule 14-1(1), but subsection (f) is the significant one in this case. Rule 14-1(10), which pertains to plaintiffs who recover in this Court a sum within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court, does not apply in this case.

[6] Rule 15-1(15)(a) states a party in a fast track action is entitled to costs of $8,000, exclusive of disbursements, if the time spent on the hearing is one day or less, unless the court orders otherwise or the parties consent.

[7] I agree with the plaintiffs that although they had proceeded by way of summary trial and did not file a notice of fast track action, the wording of Rule15-1(1) governs and the action qualifies as a fast track action under Rule 15-1(1)(a) or 15-1(1)(b).

[8] As the plaintiffs point out, because they claimed various forms of relief under the Business Corporations Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 57 [Business Corporations Act], it is arguable they were claiming more than monetary relief. Even so, the action still completed under Rule 9-7 in less than one day.

[9] The plaintiffs submit it would be appropriate for me to order $8,000 in costs. This represents the amount payable in a fast track action; and, despite the fact that the plaintiffs proceeded by way of summary trial under Rule 9-7, the plaintiffs submit an order for $8,000 in costs is appropriate in this case. I find the $8,000 set out in Rule 15-1(15)(a) is appropriate in this case.

This case is also a useful precedent because as set out in paragraph 8 the Court suggests that Rule 15 applies regardless of quantum provided the trial takes three days or less.

This case is worth reading in conjunction with the recent case of Johnson v. Axten which held that the Rule 15 costs cap can apply to pre-trial settlements of under $100,000 even if the case was not prosecuted under the fast track rule.

Compelled Independent Medical Exams and "Consent"

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 13, BCSC Civil Rule 7, independent medical exams, Uncategorized.


Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing a much debated topic; can a Plaintiff be forced to sign a ‘consent‘ document when compelled to attend an independent medical exam under the Rules of Court.  In short the Court held that this was possible.
In this week’s case (Kalaora v. Gordon) the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision and sued for damages.  In the course of the lawsuit the Plaintiff agreed to attend a defence medical exam.  At the appointment the physician asked the Plaintiff to sign a consent form authorizing the physician to proceed with the medical examination.  The Plaintiff refused to sign this.  The Defendant brought an application to compel this document to be signed.  In granting the application Madam Justice Hyslop provided the following reasons:

[79] Rule 13-1(19) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules provides assistance in this matter:

Orders on terms and conditions

(19) When making an order under these Supreme Court Civil Rules, the court may impose terms and conditions and give directions it considers will further the object of these Supreme Court Civil Rules.

[80] In Nikolic, Mr. Justice Williams stated that Rule 1(12) (the former Rule)

grants the court wide discretionary powers, in the making of orders, to impose terms and conditions and give directions as its thinks just. Read collectively [he is referring to the then document rules], a master or judge of this Court has the jurisdiction to create the mechanisms by which relevant non-privileged documents in a litigant’s “power” will be produced, including the jurisdiction to order him or her to execute the necessary documentation allowing a record-holder, whether residing in or outside British Columbia, to effect the release of those documents.

Rule 13-1(19) together with Rule 7-6(1), (the medical examination rule) read together, permit the court to order that the plaintiff to sign an authorization.

[81] By refusing to sign a consent or give a verbal agreement, Dr. Smith is open to charges of assault and battery. To insist that the defendant find another psychiatrist to pursue the medical examination without the consent of the plaintiff is unlikely.

[82] When plaintiff’s counsel consented to the medical examination of Mr. Kalaora by Dr. Smith, and Mr. Kalaora appeared at Dr. Smith’s office as scheduled, it certainly could be inferred that Mr. Kalaora agreed to the medical examination. However, when he refused to sign the consent or consent verbally, he withdrew that consent.

[83] Based on the case law, the Supreme Court Civil Rules and their purpose, the underlying need for full disclosure, the court can order a litigant to sign a consent or authorization.

[84] The plaintiff made it clear that they are agreeable to attending a medical examination with Dr. Smith. I order that the plaintiff attend a medical examination with Dr. Smith at a time and place as agreed. I order that the plaintiff sign an authorization or consent in the exact terms as sought by Dr. Smith for the original medical examination which did not proceed.

For two recent case summaries further discussing the Court’s ability to order a Plaintiff to sign authorizations/waivers you can click here and here.  From my perspective there appears to be some inconsistency in the authorities addressing the power of the BC Supreme Court to order a Plaintiff to sign an authorization and clarification from the BC Court of Appeal or by way of Rules Amendment would be helpful.

ICBC Part 7 Exam Once Again Thwarts Defence Medical Exam Request

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 7, independent medical exams, Uncategorized.

Earlier this month I discussed a case dismissing a defence application for an ‘independent’ medical exam where the Plaintiff already attended an ICBC arranged medical examination.  Further reasons for judgement were released by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, with the same disposition.
In this week’s case (Soczynski v. Cai) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2008 collision.  Both she and the Defendant were insured by ICBC. As is the usual practice in BC, the same ICBC adjuster was handling the Plaintiff’s claim for no-fault benefits and also her tort claim.
The adjuster arranged an independent medical exam with an orthopaedic surgeon.  The Plaintiff attended.  In the course of the lawsuit the Defendant brought a court motion to compel the Plaintiff to be examined by a second surgeon.  The motion was dismissed, however, with the Court finding that the previous ICBC exam created a ‘level playing field’.  Master McDiarmid provided the following useful reasons:
[21] In reviewing the facts in this case, and keeping in mind the main principle to be looked at here, the principle of keeping the parties on an equal footing, I find that in the circumstances of this case, and in particular, the fact that the ICBC adjuster was handling both the Part 7 and tort claims, and did not respond when she knew that the plaintiff’s position was that the examination in front of Dr. Bishop was to deal with both those claims, I find that the examination which took place at the behest of ICBC on January 27, 2009 by Dr. Paul Bishop constituted the first medical examination as contemplated by Rule 7-6(1). The defendants want a further examination by another medical practitioner who practices in the area of orthopaedics. The plaintiff is not relying on any orthopaedic specialists. Keeping in mind the “level playing field” principle, it is not appropriate to order a further examination of the plaintiff by a medical practitioner having expertise in the area of orthopaedics.
For an example of a recent case where an ICBC Part 7 exam which went beyond Part 7 matters did not prohibit a tort Defence Medical exam you can click here to read Master MacNaughton’s recent reasons for judgement in Assalone v. Le.

ICBC's Part 7 Exam Thwarts Defence Medical Exam Application

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 7, ICBC No-Fault (Part 7) Benefits, independent medical exams, Uncategorized. 48 Comments on ICBC's Part 7 Exam Thwarts Defence Medical Exam Application

As previously discussed, when a Defendant is insured with ICBC their ability to set up an ‘independent‘ medical exam can be compromised if ICBC exercised their rights to have the Plaintiff examined under section 99 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation and if that exam went beyond what was required for a ‘part 7’ opinion.  Reasons for judgement were recently released by the BC Supreme Court, Rossland Registry, demonstrating such an outcome.
In the recent case (Wocknitz v. Donaldson) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2008 collision.  Both the Plaintiff and Defendant were insured by ICBC.  Before litigation got underway ICBC had the Plaintiff assessed by a physiatrist.   As is not uncommon with these types of examinations, the report generated exceeded the narrow scope of Part 7 Benefit needs.
In the course of the lawsuit the Plaintiff obtained their own expert opinion from a physiatrist.  The Defendant’s brought an application to compel the Plaintiff to be assessed by another physiatrist and by a psychiatrist.  They argued this was necessary to ‘level the playing field’.  Mr. Justice Pearlman disagreed and dismissed the application.  In doing so the Court provided the following helpful reasons:

[14] In Robertson v. Grist, 2006 BCSC 1245, at paragraph 14, Madam Justice Dillon addressed the question of whether a Part 7 examination constitutes a first independent medical examination for the purposes of a tort claim. She said this:

[14]      Whether the Part 7 examination constitutes a first independent medical examination depends upon the scope of the examination, given the rest of the circumstances here.  There was no limitation on Dr. Jaworski’s examination and the request letter covered matters that would solely be relevant to a tort action.  The doctor’s report was not limited to a rehabilitation opinion about whether the injuries sustained in the accident totally disabled the plaintiff from work within 20 days of the accident and for a period of 104 weeks or less, the criteria in section 80 of the Part 7 benefits Regulations.  The examination was a first independent medical examination within the meaning of Rule 30.

[15] In this case, the letter from the adjustor instructing Dr. Findlay has not been put in evidence.  However, it is clear from Dr. Findlay’s report that it deals with matters which go beyond an inquiry restricted to Part 7 benefits, and deals with matters directly relevant to the tort claim. ..

[19] In this case, there have been no subsequent unforeseeable events which would, in my view, warrant a second examination by a physiatrist.

[20] With respect to the application of the defendants for an order for an independent medical examination by a psychiatrist, again this is not a case where such an examination is required in order to level the playing field.  This is not a case where the plaintiff has obtained or intends to obtain a psychiatric report.  An independent medical examination by a psychiatrist is a particularly invasive form of examination and, in the circumstances of this case, it is not one that I would be prepared to order.

[21] With respect to the defendants’ submission that because Dr. Findlay provided his report some nine months after the accident, he was not in a position to pronounce in any definitive way with respect to a prognosis, in my view the timing of Dr. Findlay’s examination was a matter that was entirely within the control of the defendants.  That does not provide a basis which would justify an order for a second independent examination by a physiatrist.  As counsel for the plaintiff has pointed out, it would still be open to the defendants to have Dr. Findlay review the report of Dr. Valentine, and the clinical records that have been produced, and to provide a rebuttal report for use at trial.

[22] The application of the defendants for the two independent medical examinations sought is dismissed.

7 Hour Examination For Discovery Cap Does Not Permit Discovery Splitting

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 7.


Important reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, further clarifying the examination for discovery limit in the new Rules of Court.  In short the Court held that notwithstanding the time limit, generally only one examination for discovery is permitted.
In today’s case (Humphrey v. McDonald) the Plaintiff alleged injury following a collision.  In the course of the lawsuit the Plaintiff attended an examination for discovery.  It did not exceed the 7 hour cap set out in Rule 7-2(2).  Defence counsel brought an application seeking further discovery.  The Plaintiff opposed.  Madam Justice Gray dismissed the application finding that generally only one discovery is permitted.  The Court provided the following useful reasons:

[8] Defence counsel responds that it is implied that examinations should not be scheduled if it was abusive, but apart from that, a party can schedule multiple examinations for up to seven hours in total.

[9] In my view, the use of the plural “examinations for discovery” has to be read in the context of the entire sub-rule. It makes reference to examinations under other sub-rules, which relate to re-examination in subsection (17), in subsection (22) to informing himself or herself and it being adjourned for that purpose, and subsection (24) continuing an examination for discovery following receiving a letter.

[10] In my view, the sub-rule does not suggest that there should be more than one examination for discovery of a party. A party should be able to know whether they are finished with examinations for discovery or whether more are pending.

[11] I do not accept the interpretation of the sub-rule advanced by defence counsel. Since defence counsel has effectively conceded that it has had one examination for discovery of the plaintiff, the defence application to have a further examination for discovery of the plaintiff is dismissed.

The Examination For Discovery Time Limit: When Multiple Cases are Tried Together

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 7. 47 Comments on The Examination For Discovery Time Limit: When Multiple Cases are Tried Together


Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, addressing the time limit for examinations for discovery when two actions are set for trial at the same time.  In short the Court held that the Rules permit up to 14 hours of Plaintiff examination in these circumstances without the need for a Court Order.
In last week’s case (Campbell v. McDougall) the Plaintiff was involved in two separate motor vehicle collisions.  She sued for damages in both actions.  In the course of the lawsuit the Plaintiff was examined for discovery which was discontinued after 3.5 hours due to the Plaintiff’s fatigue.  The discovery was reset and continued for a full day for a total of 10.5 hours of examination.
The Defendant wished to have 2.5 further hours of examination.    The Plaintiff opposed and a Court application was brought.  It appears the the parties worked out many of their differences prior to the hearing of the application but ultimately the Court ordered that the Plaintiff attend a further 2.5 hours.
In doing so Master Bouck provided the following comments with respect to the discovery ‘cap’ of 7 hours set out in Rule 7-2(2):





[32] In the end, the plaintiff could be required to undergo up to 14 hours of an examination under Rule 7-2 without the defence having to obtain leave of the court.

[33] In this case, the defence has chosen to have one counsel conduct an examination, but effectively with respect to both actions.

[34] There is a sound basis for requesting the “additional” examination time, particularly with respect to the plaintiff’s new employment status. While it seems unlikely that the court would grant leave to exceed the specified hour allotment simply when some new information comes to light, the plaintiff’s earning abilities and capacity forms a significant part of the overall claim. A very large monetary amount for that loss will probably be advanced. An additional 2½ hours (and still less than the allowable 14 hours) examination time is not out of proportion to the amount involved in this proceeding.





"Investigative Stage" Trumps ICBC's Litigation Privilege Claim

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 7, Uncategorized.


Given ICBC’s monopoly over vehicle insurance in BC they typically have to perform multiple roles following a collision including investigating the issue of fault in order to make internal decisions regarding the premium consequences for the customers involved in the crash.  Documents prepared during this ‘investigative‘ stage generally need to be produced during litigation and claims for litigation privilege will fail.  Reasons for judgement were released this week further demonstrating this fact.
In this week’s case (Fournier v. Stangroom) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2007 collision.  In the early days following the crash and well before litigation got underway ICBC retained an engineering firm to inspect the Plaintiff’s vehicle.  The engineering firm communicated their findings to ICBC.  In the course of the lawsuit the Defence lawyer commissioned an expert report from the same firm but did not exchange it with the Plaintiff’s lawyer.
The Plaintiff made the typical document disclosure demands from the Defendants.   These were not complied with in a satisfactory fashion resulting in a Court application.   The Defence lawyer argued that the full file from the engineering firm is subject to litigation privilege.  Master Caldwell disagreed and ultimately ordered better document disclosure inlcuding production of the engineering firms materials documenting their initial investigation.  In making this order Master Caldwell provided the following reasons:




[11] On August 9, 2007 the initial adjuster on the file requested MEA or one of their engineers to examine the plaintiff’s vehicle in order to determine whether the plaintiff was wearing his seatbelt at the time of the collision. The engineer did so, communicated with the adjuster the following day with questions and subsequently reported to the adjuster on September 13, 2007. That adjuster referred to that report as being sufficient for his purposes; the next adjuster, Ms. Madsen referred to the “verbal report” as being “sufficient for the purposes of handling the claim SHORT OF LITIGATION” (emphasis mine).

[12] In early 2011 defence counsel commissioned MEA to prepare an expert report, apparently regarding the seatbelt issue, for possible use at trial; he says that since such a report has now been requested, the engineer’s file material, notes and such are not producible unless and until the report is received and provided to plaintiff’s counsel 84 days before trial.

[13] In cases such as this one, the adjuster or adjusters have duties of investigation on behalf of both the plaintiff and the defendants; there must, almost of necessity, be an initial period of adjusting or investigating to discover the factual matrix within which the adjusters will perform their duties and assess the file and the claims or roles of the interested parties. Absent such period and process of investigation the adjuster can have no reasonable basis upon which to conclude that there is a reasonable prospect of litigation and that all or part of what is done from any given point in time forward is done for the dominant purpose of litigation. In this regard see Hamalainen (Committee of) v. Sippola (1991) 62 BCLR (2d) 254 (BCCA).

[14] These engineers were approached within the first 3 weeks following the collision, clearly within the period of initial investigation and was even seen by at least one of the adjusters as being used for purposes of handling the file short of litigation. The investigative material, notes, correspondence and other such recordings of the engineers were not created at a time when litigation was a reasonable prospect; neither were they created for the dominant purpose of litigation. The fact that counsel has now requested an expert report from MEA does nothing to change that any more than a request to a G.P. or plaintiff’s medical expert that he or she provide an expert report renders that practitioner’s clinical records privileged.

[15] The MEA investigative material, notes, correspondence and working papers which arose between August 9, 2007 and September 13, 2007 inclusive are not subject to a valid claim of litigation privilege; they are ordered to be listed and to be produced to plaintiff’s counsel within 14 days. If there are any other MEA materials which arose between September 14, 2007 and the date when defence counsel commissioned their expert report, those are to be listed with the required clarity, date and description in order that any further claim of litigation privilege can be properly assessed.





Defense Doctor Video Deposition Request Denied

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 7, independent medical exams. 55 Comments on Defense Doctor Video Deposition Request Denied


In  the course of a lawsuit it is not uncommon for expert witnesses to occasionally be unavailable for trial.  When this happens their evidence is often recorded by way of pre trial deposition.  If the parties don’t consent to this practice the party wishing to rely on the expert can seek a court order permitting a deposition.  Useful reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, addressing such an application.
In this week’s case (Campbell v. McDougall) the Plaintiff was involved in two collisions.  In the course of her claim she attended a Defence Medical Exam with Dr. Maloon.   He produced a report which the Plaintiff intended to challenge by way of cross examination.  Dr. Maloon was scheduled to be out of the Country at the time of trial and the Defendants lawyer brought an application that his evidence be recorded by way of pre-trial deposition.  The Plaintiff opposed arguing that if the physician was not available to testify in person at the very least he should testify live via video-conference.
Master Bouck agreed with the Plaintiff and dismissed the application.  In doing so the Court provided the following helpful reasons:

[47] The predecessor to Rule 7-8 was Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. The language in these Rules mirror each other except for the new consideration of the possibility and desirability of having a witness testify by videoconferencing: Seder v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2011 BCSC 823 at para. 4.

[48] The introduction of this factor reflects a recognition by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council that modern technology will allow a witness outside of the court’s jurisdiction to provide live and simultaneous evidence — in effect, to be in open court…

[55] In this case, Dr. Maloon is an important witness for the defence. From this observer’s perspective, there are several aspects of the report that invite careful and thorough cross-examination by plaintiff’s counsel.

[56] It is fairly easy to anticipate areas of cross-examination where objections might be raised by the defence. The court will then be asked to rule on the objections at trial in Dr. Maloon’s absence. The plaintiff will not have the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Maloon on issues arising from evidence led at trial, or garnered through the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s own experts.

[57] The concerns raised by Mr. Justice Harris in Byer v. Mills are reasonably anticipated in this case. It is desirable that Dr. Maloon testify in open court; videoconferencing offers this opportunity.

[58] The defence has not provided any evidence to contradict the plaintiff’s evidence as to the availability of videoconferencing technology in southern Africa. How that videoconferencing will be set up is yet to be determined. Nonetheless, the criteria under Rule 7-8(1)(d) is the possibility of the use of videoconferencing.

[59] Another factor to consider here is that Dr. Maloon was aware of the trial date and the possibility of his sabbatical when he agreed to perform this independent medical examination. While the court would never discourage or be critical of the terms of the sabbatical taken by Dr. Maloon, the consequences of that sabbatical should not trump the objective of achieving a fair trial in this matter.

[60] Finally, it should be noted that the court’s order is simply to dismiss the application to have Dr. Maloon attend at a deposition on September 8, 2011. The order will not state that Dr. Maloon’s evidence must be provided by way of videoconferencing although that appears to be the parties’ intention as neither wishes to disrupt Dr. Maloon’s sabbatical by flying him to Victoria for a day or two of testimony: Rule 7-8(3)(e).

Prejudice To Defendant Not Enough To Compel Plaintiff to Attend "Responding" IME

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 11, BCSC Civil Rule 7, independent medical exams, Uncategorized. 50 Comments on Prejudice To Defendant Not Enough To Compel Plaintiff to Attend "Responding" IME

(Update November 16, 2011 – The case discussed in the below post has now been published and full reasons for judgement can be found here)
One of the patterns that is becoming very clear under the New Rules of Court is that Parties ignore the 84 day requirement for exchange of expert evidence at their peril.
Often times Defendants apply for an order compelling a Plaintiff to attend an Independent Medical Exam beyond this deadline.  Numerous cases have considered such applications with the argument that an assessment is necessary in order to obtain a ‘responding‘ report under the more generous 42 day deadline of Rule 11-6(4).  Reasons for judgement were recently released by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, considering and rejecting such an argument.
In today’s case (Scott v. Ridgway) the Plaintiff was injured and sued for damages.  In the course of the lawsuit the Plaintiff served the report of a vocational consultant.  The Defendant applied for an order to compel the Plaintiff to attend an independent exam in order to obtain a responding report.   The Defendant brought the application after the 84 day deadline.  Madam Justice Kloegman dismissed the application finding that prejudice is not enough to compel an IME for the purpose of a responding report.  The Court provided the following useful reasons:
[6]  I am not persuaded that the plaintiff is required to attend before Dr. Banks in order for the defendant to file a responsive report.  I am aware of the prejudice claimed by the defendant that their expert’s opinion may be given less weight because of lack of examination of the plaintiff.  However, if they are prejudiced, it is of their making and not the result of any conduct of the plaintiff.
[7]  The rules are clear.  They must be obeyed in the absence of special circumstances.  There are no special circumstances here that would allow the defendant to file a report containing fresh opinion.  The defendant will be restricted to analyzing and respond to the plaintiff’s report.
I should note that some previous cases have ordered physical examination for responding report purposes, however, in such cases the Court was presented with affidavit evidence from the proposed expert explaining why such an examination is necessary.
In today’s case the Defendant did provide an affidavit from a doctor but the court placed no weight in it and criticized it for being “lifted from another affidavit sworn by another expert in another case with other expertise than that of Dr. Cook”.
Today’s reasons are unpublished but as always I’m happy to share a copy with anyone who contacts me and requests these.