In what circumstances will a sub-rule (14) and (26) of Rule 27 of the Rules of Civil Procedure be engaged?

In Lo v. Lo, [1991] B.C.J. No. 3005 (S.C.), both sub-rules (14) and (26) of Rule 27 were engaged. The court held that justice and convenience was "constant with the result that would probably involve the least expenditure."

In Lo, the court discussed the earlier decision of Verchere J. in Whitfield v. Thompson, [1977] B.C.J. No. 499 (S.C.). The defendant in that case sought an order that the plaintiff be examined for discovery in Chicago rather than Vancouver. The plaintiff had offered to come to Vancouver. Verchere J., in determining what was just and convenient, considered the cost of having the plaintiff attend in Vancouver, which would have been approximately one-quarter of the cost of having the examination in Chicago, particularly when taking into account the expense attendant upon her solicitor travelling to Chicago. Verchere J. also took into account the fact that the cause of action arose, and the litigation was being conducted, in Vancouver.