One of the welcome developments in the New BC Supreme Court Rules is a cap on the length of examinations for discovery. Examinations in conventional lawsuits are capped at 7 hours under Rule 7-2(a) and limited to 2 hours in Fast Track trials. The Court has a general power to permit lengthier examinations in appropriate circumstances.
When parties conclude an examination for discovery there are typically requests for further information and parties usually agree to a follow up discovery to address matters arising from the further disclosure. When a party wishes to further explore a topic already covered, however, they are usually not permitted to have a continuation of the discovery. Reasons for judgement were released today addressing this area of law.
In today’s case (Lewis v Lewis) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2005 motor vehicle collision. The Plaintiff alleged injury. The Defendant denied that she was injured and alleged that her injuries were pre-existing. In the course of the lawsuit the Plaintiff provided various medical records including pre-accident records.
The Plaintiff attended a discovery and was examined with respect to her injury claim. After concluding the discovery the Defendants requested a continuation to further explore the issue of the Plaintiff’s pre-accident health. The Plaintiff opposed arguing that she had already been examined with respect to this topic. Mr. Justice Harvey agreed with the Plaintiff and dismissed the application for a further discovery. In doing so the Court provided the following useful reasons:
 The case law stands for the proposition that where a further examination for discovery is sought, there is a heavy onus on the applicant to justify that further examination, and that to justify same they must demonstrate that the complexion of the case has materially changed as a result of the passage of time, new heads of damage are being advanced, or intervening events having occurred since the last discovery, which would materially alter the prosecution of the case and the defence of it.
 Alternatively, a party could produce evidence to show that full and frank disclosure was not made at the first discovery.
 Here that is not the case. Here the defendant, together with its medical advisor, failed to see what was there to be seen. Specifically, each failed to note and act upon the references to previous shoulder complaints in clinical records that were in the hands of both the medical practitioner and the solicitor conducting the discovery. I am not satisfied that the heavy onus that is set forth in the decisions I have been referred to, one of which was Sutherland (Public Trustee of) v. Lucas, has been met.
 Accordingly the application for a further discovery by the defendant is dismissed.