Is there an exception (b) to the rule against the compellability of opinion evidence?

Of these two exceptions it is only of the latter to which consideration must be given. This issue was canvassed in Shickele et al v. Rousseau (1965) 53 W.W.R. (N.S.) 568 (B.C.S.C.) an action taken against a medical doctor for negligence where he objected on discovery to certain questions soliciting his expert opinion. Dryer, J. (whose decision was upheld on appeal) invoked exception (b) and directed that answers be given. He distinguished several cases cited to him to support the rule against the compellability of opinion evidence by pointing out that in each of the cases relied upon the person examined, unlike the doctor, was not a party to the action in his personal capacity. Of the doctor he said at p.569: “… however, the defendant does not just ‘happen’ to be ‘qualified as a professional person and expert witness.’ His qualifications and his expert knowledge and skills go to the very roots of the action.”