The lawyer for the defendant in this lawsuit claimed that the Civil Rules allow ICBC and other defendants to force an injury claimant to submit to multiple examinations (Humphrey v. McDonald,2011 BCSC 1288) as long as the total time is less than 7 hours- The Court disagreed.  The defence in this case relied on the wording of the Examination for Discovery Rule. Examination for Discovery is essentially an oral examination on oath.  Rule 7-2(2) says: 

(2)        Unless the court otherwise orders, the examinations for discovery, including all examinations under subrules (17), (22) and (24), conducted under this rule of a party of record, including any such examinations conducted of a person referred to in subrule (1) (b) who is examined in relation to that party of record, by any other party of record who is adverse in interest must not, in total, exceed in duration 

(a)        7 hours, or 

(b)        any greater period to which the person to be examined consents. 
In finding that litigants are only entitled to one examination Judge Gray was of the view that 

“…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.” 
Generally, if  further examination for discovery is sought, there is a heavy onus on the applicant to justify that further examination, and they must demonstrate that the complexion of the injury case has materially changed as a result of the passage of time, new claims are being advanced, or intervening events having occurred since the last examination for discovery, which would materially alter the prosecution of the case. Take a read of my review of the car accident injury case of Lewis v. Lewis, 2010 BCSC 1925 where ICBC was again denied a second examination for discovery.  Posted byMr. Renn A. Holness

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment