Does a Part 7 examination constitute a first independent medical examination for the purposes of tort?

British Columbia, Canada


The following excerpt is from Wocknitz v. Donaldson, 2010 BCSC 1991 (CanLII):

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:

Other Questions


Under Rule 30(1) of the Rules of Court, can an independent medical examination be ordered for the purposes of determining whether an individual is fit for purpose? (British Columbia, Canada)
Under Rule 30(1) of the Rules of Court, can an independent medical examination be ordered for the purposes of determining whether an individual is fit for trial? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a Master's Order denying an independent medical examination of a plaintiff raise questions that may be vital to the final issue in the case? (British Columbia, Canada)
What authority exists in this province with respect to recording of independent medical examinations? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can counsel for the party being examined on examination for discovery interfere on cross-examination? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the legal test for requiring an independent medical examination? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is there any new question or matter that should be the subject of an inquiry or an independent medical examination? (British Columbia, Canada)
What are the costs of a plaintiff's independent medical examination? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a court compel a medical examination for the purposes of challenging an individual's legal competency? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is it reasonable for a plaintiff to travel to Victoria or Vancouver for an independent medical examination? (British Columbia, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.