ICBC can force injury claimants to attend a medical examination to verify the injuries claimed. In the past it has been a common practice for ICBC to have investigators follow claimants from their home to the examinations and follow them afterward. However the Court no longer agrees that this is appropriate and has ruled in the following case that ICBC is not permitted to use this medical examination process to have surveillance put on claimants.
The claimant was injured in a motor vehicle collision on the Island Highway near Duncan. The defendant applied for an order that the claimant attend two medical examinations. The only issue revolves around a proposed condition prohibiting ICBC from conducting surveillance of the claimant during his travels to and from these medical examinations.
In barring ICBC from surveillance of an injury claimant to and from an ICBC medical examination the Court made it clear:
 The defendant nominates a R. 7-6 medical examiner, but it is the Court that appoints the examiner and orders the plaintiff to attend for the examination at a particular time and place. On the dates of the medical examinations, the plaintiff will not be in public on journeys of his own choosing. If the defendant or the defendant’s insurer takes advantage of the opportunity created by court order to engage in surveillance then the defendant might be seen by a reasonable observer to be acting in close concert with the Court. Partisan conduct aligned with the court order may be seen as lessening or compromising the Court’s neutrality, and the Court must, of course, zealously protect its reputation for impartiality.
 Barring surveillance on the trip to or from the medical examinations is hardly a significant barrier to the defendant’s ability to gather information, and in my view the imposition of a surveillance bar and the consequent chance that the trier of fact might be deprived of some relevant information is a small price to pay to guard the Court’s reputation. Returning to R. 13-1(9), I think the non-surveillance condition promotes the just determination of this proceeding — a stated object of the Rules — because it prevents the possibility of conduct which might degrade the perception of the Court’s impartiality.(Moquin v. Fitt, 2017 BCSC 1204)
The Court has therefore barred ICBC from surveillance of an injury claimant on the way to the examinations, during the examinations, or on his return from the examination.
This applies to medical examinations under the Rules of Court and it is unclear whether this will apply to ICBC medical examination before litigation and for the purpose of accident benefits.
Posted by Personal Injury Lawyer Mr. Renn A. Holness, B.A. LL.B.– working for and assisting ICBC injury claimants for over 21 years.