Skip to main content

Tag: Rule 7

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.

Exclusion of Witnesses Results in New Trial in Chronic Pain Case

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 1, BCSC Civil Rule 7, Civil Procedure, ICBC Privacy Issues. 46 Comments on Exclusion of Witnesses Results in New Trial in Chronic Pain Case

This week the BC Court of Appeal released reasons for judgement ordering a new trial following a chronic pain case which resulted in a $525,000 damage assessment.
In this week’s case (Houston v. Kine) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2006 collision.  She allegedly suffered from PTSD and a chronic pain disorder as a result of the crash.  The matter went to trial although did not conclude in the time initially allotted.
There was a 5 month gap before the trial recommenced.  During this break ICBC undertook surveillance of the Plaintiff over two periods of time.  The Defence lawyers, however, failed to disclose this evidence in compliance with the Rules of Court.  As a result the trial judge refused to let the evidence in.  The Court went further, however, and held that the witnesses who made the videos could not testify as to their observations of the Plaintiff as doing so would undermine the decision to exclude the video evidence.
The Defendants appealed arguing that the witnesses were wrongly excluded.  The BC Court of Appeal agreed and found that while “the defendants’ choice at trial to withhold the existence of the videotapes….was inappropriate” and that this evidence was rightly excluded it was improper to exclude the witnesses themselves to testify.  In ordering a new trial the BC Court of Appeal provided the following reasons:






[31] The obvious difficulty with the viva voce evidence was that the observers were unknown to the defendants prior to the hiatus in the trial. The earliest that they could have been identified was in November of 2009. By then, the plaintiff’s preparation for trial was all but over. To constrain the defendants’ ability to react to the plaintiff’s evidence to “prevent surprise or ambush” in my view unfairly restricted their ability to have the proceeding determined on its merits. As the trial judge accepted that there was no restriction on calling lay witnesses, she erred in imposing that restriction respecting witnesses who could comment on the plaintiff’s activities during the hiatus in the trial.

[32] The trial judge’s second reason for refusing to allow the observation witnesses to testify was that:

It would be inconsistent with my previous order and with the objects of the Rules, expressed in R. 1(5), “to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding on its merits,” to allow the defendants to, in effect, ambush the plaintiff with this evidence, which has been disclosed only recently.

[33] In my view the trial judge here misapplied Rule 1(5), focussing on speed in the completion of the proceedings at the expense of their merits. The Rule and the third factor in Stoneemphasize the importance of the determination of a proceeding on its merits. In order to determine a proceeding on its merits, the admissible evidence that is tendered by a party and is relevant to matters in issue should be considered.

[34] In addition, given that the original trial estimate was exceeded by the plaintiff’s case, necessitating the adjournment of the trial that caused the hiatus that brought about the acquisition of new evidence by the defendants, I am unable to accept that the delay resulting from the proposed evidence should have been treated any differently from the delay that was occasioned by the initial inadequate trial time estimate. The failure to do so prevented the determination of these proceedings on their merits. I conclude that the trial judge erred in law in refusing to permit the witnesses to give viva voce evidence at the trial…







[36] Here, the credibility of the plaintiff was a critical factor in the trial judge’s assessment of quantum, and the evidence of the observers was intended to directly address the plaintiff’s credibility. In my view, the refusal of the trial judge to permit the defendants to adduce evidence to challenge the plaintiff’s physical abilities at the date of the trial was unfair, and given the importance of this evidence to the ultimate award of damages for future diminished earning capacity and future cost of care, I see no alternative but to order a new trial on damages. I would thus allow the appeal and order a new trial.

Defendant Denied Second Medical Exam Despite Potential "Concerns" Of First Expert's Opinion

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

(Update:  The below decision was upheld on Appeal by Mr. Justice Smith on September 29, 2011)
Although Rule 7-6(2) of the BC Supreme Court Civil Rules permits multiple court ordered medical examinations, there is a general prohibition of multiple exams to comment on the same topic.  Useful reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, demonstrating this in the context of a psychiatric condition which developed following a motor vehicle collision.
In this week’s case (De Sousa v. Bradaric and Borthwick) 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“.
In the face of this clear diagnosis from the treating physicians a second Defence Medical Exam was sought, this time with a different psychiatrist.  The Court rejected the application despite potential “concerns….with the quality or reliability” of Dr. Davis’ opinion.  In rejecting the application Master Baker provided the following helpful reasons:

[13] I am not satisfied at all that in these circumstances, with these facts and history, that a second IME is justified. It is easily as consistent in my mind that the defence now disagrees or is concerned about issues with Dr. Davis’ position and report. It is easily consistent, in my view, that the application aims to mediate or improve upon Dr. Davis’ opinions.

[14] Yes, Mr. McIvor is absolutely correct that the psychosis, if any, was at a fairly nascent stage in 2007 when Dr. Davis saw her and that it has apparently, if one takes the evidence of the plaintiff, become full-blown. Well, so be it. In my respectful view, Dr. Davis is a psychiatrist. He is an expert in psychiatric matters. He has been consulted on, I am told, many occasions. That is not denied. I would expect him to be alive to the issue. He certainly inquired of Ms. De Sousa and very soon after was advised of the psychotic overlay or potential for it and has absolutely rejected that.

[15] In all the circumstances, I just cannot see a basis for the second opinion. It is a multi-stage test, of course. There are aspects of this both counsel have properly put before the court, starting with as Mr. McIvor has pointed out the Chief Justice in Wildemann (1990), 50 B.C.L.R. (2d) 244 (C.A.). It must be an exceptional case that justifies the second IME or one that is required to place the parties on equal footing. I cannot see that in this particular case. What is, I think, concerning the defence, I infer, is concerns they have with the quality or reliability of a report obtained in this specific area of expertise.










[16] The court should be concerned according to McKay v. Passmore, 2005 BCSC 570, that the matter is something that could not reasonably be seen or anticipated or dealt with at the time. Well, again, I do not see that that applies in this case. There was a previous committal for psychotic reasons. Counsel called and advised that she had been to the hospital, possibly not for psychotic reasons, possibly as I said earlier for cognitive reasons; possibly he did not have in hand the medical records. He probably did not. It sounds to me like it was on an emergency basis, but surely that should have given rise to real concerns on the part of any inquiring professional such as Dr. Davis.

[17] The passage of time alone does not justify a second IME. That is true. However, that may be qualified, I suppose, when the passage of time allows for the development of a whole new area of concern or symptomology. Certainly, as I have said already a couple of times, her psychosis has really developed and become much more obvious, apparently. However, I do not think this aspect applies because it should have been evident to a reasonable inquiry at the time that there was a real issue about this…











[21] Yes, this may be developing into a major claim, but that does not change all of the other considerations that I have applied and taken from the cases, all of which lead me to conclude that the application should be dismissed, and it is.

More on Part 7 Medical Exams Barring Tort Exams

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

As previously discussed, ICBC can typically arrange an ‘independent’ medical exam (IME) in one of two ways.  The first is when an insured applies for first party no-fault benefits.  Section 99 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation gives ICBC the power to compel an IME in these circumstances.  The second is under Rule 7-6(1) of the BC Supreme Court rules which allows the court to order an independent exam to “level the playing field” in an injury lawsuit.
Two sets of reasons for judgement were recently brought to my attention from the BC Supreme Court, Campbell River Registry, discussing when a previous Part 7 Exam will prevent ICBC from obtaining a new expert under the Rules of Court.
In the first case (Robinson v. Zerr) the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision.  In the course of dealing with ICBC for his Part 7 Benefits the Plaintiff attended a medical appointment arranged by ICBC with an orthopaedic surgeon.  In the course of the tort lawsuit ICBC attempted to get an opinion from a second orthopaedic surgeon.  The Plaintiff opposed this.  ICBC brought an application to compel the second exam but this was dismissed with the Court finding that the first report strayed beyond what was required for a Part 7 exam.  In dismissing the Application Master McCallum provided the following reasons:
[8]  The authorities are clear that the Part 7 report can be treated, as it was in Robertson v. Grist, as a report in the tort action if it is shown that it effectively covered all of that ground, as I understand it.  It is clear from Dr. Dommisse’s that it does cover all of what one may expect in a report.   Dr. Dommisse did not have access to the pre-accident clinical records.  However, it is clear he knew of the plaintiff’s history because he describes past treatments and past history…
[10]  Dr. Dommisse went through the examination and gave his opinion.  His opinion is not qualified in any way.  He does not suggest that there is more information he needs.  He makes no recommendaiton for treatment.  There is nothing to suggest that, if he had more information or that he wished more information before he could make the determinations he did.
[11]  The report, in my view, is the same of sufficiently similar to the report in Robertson v. Grist and obtained in circumstances that persuade me that this report is indeed the opportunity for the level playing field that the authorities call for.  The defendant has had the opportunity to have the plaintiff examined by an examiner of his choosing.  Although the adjuster references Part 7 claim and the disability benefits, Dr. Dommisse does not, in my view, treat the report as limited in any way and gives his opinion on every aspect of the claim…
[15]  In those circumstances the defendant’s application is dismissed.
In the second case (Lamontage v. Adams) a similar result was reached with a Court finding that a subsequent exam should be with the Part 7 physician as that examiner covered ground relevant in the tort claim.
The above cases are unreported but, as always, I’m happy to provide a copy of the reasons to anyone who contacts me and requests these.

More on Court Ordered Medical Exams and Travel

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 7, independent medical exams, Uncategorized. 47 Comments on More on Court Ordered Medical Exams and Travel


Further to my previous posts on this topic (which you can find here and here) further reasons for judgement were released by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing defence medical exams and the issue of travel.
In today’s case (Breberin v. Santos) the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident.  The Defendants wished to send her for a medical exam.  The Plaintiff lived in Edmonton and argued that the exam should take place there.  The Defendants applied for a Court order to compel an exam in Vancouver.  In opposing the application the Plaintiff produced evidence from her doctor stating that “she is unable to travel….at the present time or in the forseeable future“.
Mr. Justice Willcock was not satisfied with this medical evidence and ordered that the exam take place with the Defendant’s chosen expert in Vancouver.  In doing so the Court provided the following reasons:




[5] The argument made by the parties is, first, for the defendants, that the defendants are entitled pursuant to Rule 7-6 to obtain an order requiring the plaintiff to attend at a medical examination and that the test to be addressed by the court in determining where and when the examination should take place is fully and accurately described by Master Bouck in the decision of Parsons v. Mears, 2011 BCSC 397.  In that case, the court says that the following principles are applicable to the question whether a plaintiff should be examined within British Columbia:

a.         The purpose of an independent medical examination is to put the parties on a basis of equality. It is not for the plaintiff to decide which doctor can examine him or her on behalf of the defendant …

b.         Nonetheless, an independent medical examination is an examination conducted by a person appointed by the court. The convenience of the plaintiff is to be considered in appointing such a person …

c.         Convenience to the plaintiff is but one of several factors for the court to consider in exercising its discretion under Rule 7-6: …

d.         It may be appropriate for the court to consider appointing a specialist other than the proposed examiner but only where the plaintiff demonstrates, on a preponderance of evidence, sufficient grounds to justify the court in concluding that its discretion should not be exercised in favour of the appointment of the defendant’s nominee …

[12] In my view, the logic of Master Bouck set out in the Parsons case is applicable both in relation to independent medical examinations within and outside British Columbia.  I am of the view that the plaintiff’s convenience should be considered in determining where the independent medical examination should take place.  I am also of the view, however, that the onus should fall upon the plaintiff to show that there is a reason to depart from the general rule that the defendants are entitled to choose the expert who should conduct the independent medical examination on their behalf.  Here, the plaintiff should be required to show some justification for requiring that the independent medical examination should take place in Edmonton.

[13] As I noted when I referred to the affidavit filed by the plaintiff in response to the application, there is very little evidence with respect to the nature of the medical problem that will prevent the plaintiff from attending at an independent medical examination.  The independent medical examination is scheduled in the relatively distant future, on July 8, 2011.  There is, in my view, sufficient time for the plaintiff to prepare and make careful arrangements to attend at that examination in July.  This is not a case where the independent examination is set late in the day or in circumstances that prevent the plaintiff from making appropriate arrangements so as to make it convenient for her to attend.

[14] I am not satisfied on the evidence that the plaintiff has established that there is any reason that justifies an order that she should be examined in Edmonton as opposed to Vancouver.  There is, on the other hand, considerable advantage to the parties in having the independent medical examination being conducted in Vancouver in that the expert will be available to attend at trial if required to do so and readily available for cross-examination.  Because the case is set for trial in Vancouver, I am of the view that it is in the interests of justice in this case to order that the independent medical examination take place here.  I am not satisfied on the evidence there is any reason to depart from the Rule that the defendant should be entitled to choose an appropriate expert to conduct the examination so as to put the parties on an equal footing.




More Judicial Authority of "Responsive" Independent Medical Exams

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 11, BCSC Civil Rule 7, independent medical exams. 45 Comments on More Judicial Authority of "Responsive" Independent Medical Exams

One of the New Rules which has received more attention than most is Rule 11-6(4) which deals with responsive reports.  The issue of whether the Court could order a Plaintiff to undergo a physical exam for a responsive report has been considered a good half dozen times.  In short the authorities have held that such an order is possible but the Courts have been conservative in making these orders to date.  Further reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing this topic.
In this week’s case (Mahil v. Price) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2007 motor vehicle collision.  The Defendants did not order an independent medical report in the timelines allowed by Rule 11-6(3) and brought a motion for an exam less than 84 days before trial.  They argued that they only wished to obtain a ‘responsive’ report and that the report would comply with Rule 11-6(4).  Mr. Justice Voith held that such an appointment was permitted and allowed the order.  In doing so the Court provided the following reasons:








[21] Rule 7-6(1), formerly Rule 30, allows for the conduct of an independent medical examination. The object of Rule 30 was succinctly described by Finch J.A., as he then was, in Stainer v. ICBC, 2001 BCCA 133 at para. 8:

…the purpose of Rule 30 is to put the parties on an equal footing with respect to medical evidence. …

[22] The object of placing the parties on an equal footing is, however, only achieved in real terms if the parties also adhere to those rules which govern the timely exchange of both initial expert reports and responsive expert reports.

[23] The important relationship of what was Rule 30 and what is now Rule 7-6(1) and those Rules which pertain to the time limits for the exchange of expert reports has been recognized in other decisions. In Wright v. Brauer, 2010 BCSC 1282, Savage J. said at para. 9:

In the context of an action seeking compensation for personal injuries, the parties are on equal footing with respect to medical evidence if they can independently obtain medical evidence and if such evidence is served in accordance with the Rules.

[24] In the case of Mackichan v. June and Takeshi, 2004 BCSC 1441, Master Groves, as he then was, said at para. 11:

… It is not simply a question of putting the parties on a level playing field at this stage, it is a question of really balancing the prejudice which will result to the defendants in not having a report and the prejudice that will result to the plaintiff in having a report prepared late which would no doubt, I expect, cause an adjournment of the trial.

[25] If the defendants have Dr. Gropper prepare a properly responsive report, and if that report is delivered in accordance with the Rules, the interests of both parties are concurrently advanced and safeguarded.

[26] I have, based on a request I made, been advised by counsel for the defendants that Dr. Gropper would be able to deliver his report in advance of the 42 days provided for in Rule 11-6(4).

[27] Notwithstanding some misgivings about some of the issues advanced by the defendants, I do not believe that it would be either prudent or appropriate for me to pre-determine that the specific concerns raised by the defendants will not, in fact, be properly responsive to the Reports.

[28] I have, however, earlier in these reasons, identified with some precision the very narrow issues that the defendants assert they wish to respond to in the Reports. These reasons should provide some safeguard against Dr. Gropper’s report extending or straying beyond its permitted ambit, whether inadvertently or otherwise. I note, as did Saunders J., as she then was, in Kroll v. Eli Lilly Canada Inc. (1995), 5 B.C.L.R. (3d) 7 at para. 7 (S.C.), that truly responsive evidence:

… does not permit fresh evidence to masquerade as an answer to the other side’s report.

[29] I am therefore prepared to grant the defendants’ application. Costs are to be in the cause.