THE COURT: This is an application brought by the defence for an order that the plaintiff attend a defence medical examination which I believe is on Tuesday which is the next business day from today. It relates to a dental examination by a Dr. Bruce Blasberg. The trial of the matter is set for November 30th. The matter arises out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred in May of 2009....
The defendant seeks an order that the plaintiff attend an independent medical examination (IME) originally scheduled to be conducted by Dr. Andrew Hepburn on Monday, September 19, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. The parties were advised that they could not expect to receive a decision in time for the scheduled appointment.Background to the Application...
On September 21, 2011, I issued my decision in this matter, cited at 2011 BCSC 1258, dismissing the defendant Cais application to compel the plaintiff to attend at the offices of Dr. Simon Horlick and submit to a medical examination. The medical examination was scheduled to take place on September 29, 2011; to prevent the imposition of a cancellation fee, I issued brief written reasons dismissing the application, with more detailed reasons to follow....
The defendants appeal from a decision of a master denying their application for a second medical examination by a psychiatrist. The plaintiff alleges a variety of injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident, including brain damage and/or psychological injuries....
In a notice of application filed June 8, 2011, the defendant seeks orders with respect to production of documents, the plaintiffs attendance at an examination for discovery and the use of deposition evidence at trial....
In my reasons for judgment issued December 19, 2008, (2008 BCSC 1756) I found that the plaintiff, a chiropractor in private practice, had proven on the balance of probabilities that the defendant was solely responsible for the accident and should be held 100% liable for the plaintiffs personal injuries....
On July 19, 2005, the plaintiff, Mr. X., an RCMP officer, was responding to an emergency call on the Lougheed Highway in Coquitlam. His life changed permanently and materially when his motorcycle collided with a truck driven by one of the defendants, Mr. Y. The truck was owned by Z. Ltd., the other defendant. I will refer to the defendant, Mr. Y., as the defendant for the balance of these reasons. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff was seriously injured; he sustained a burst-fracture of his T12 vertebra and underwent fusion surgery. The plaintiff returned to his employment with the RCMP in April 2006. However, he has not returned to front-line police work....
The plaintiff, Michelle Rintoul, 27 years of age at the time of trial, was walking across Richards Street at the intersection with Dunsmuir Street in downtown Vancouver, late in the afternoon of November 3, 2006, when she was struck by a vehicle being driven by the defendant. She was knocked to the ground and suffered injuries, including a head injury....
The plaintiff, Maurice Bouchard, claims damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on February 26, 2005. The plaintiff, who was 26 years old at the time, was seated in the front passenger seat of his brothers parked truck when it was struck from behind by a pick-up truck owned by the defendants, Brown Bros. Motor Lease Canada Ltd. and United Scaffold Supply Company Inc., and operated by the defendant, Antoine Naudi. At the time of impact, the plaintiff was turned in his seat, facing to his left, as he moved some objects on the front passenger seat. He was not wearing a seatbelt because the vehicle was parked....
THE COURT: This is an application by the defendants in this motor vehicle action for an order requiring the plaintiff, Dragana Breberin, to attend at a medical examination at the office of Dr. Stephen Wiseman at one o'clock on July 8, 2011, at St. Paul's Hospital. The purpose of that attendance is for Dr. Wiseman to examine the plaintiff and prepare a medical-legal report for the assistance of the defendants in addressing the plaintiff's claim at trial. There is agreement between the parties that the defendants are entitled to have the plaintiff attend at an independent medical examination by a psychiatrist and there is no challenge to Dr. Wiseman's specific qualifications to perform that examination. The issue before me is whether the examination of the plaintiff, if ordered by the court, should take place where the plaintiff resides, Edmonton, Alberta, or whether the defendants are entitled to choose the place of the examination as well as the expert who will conduct the independent medical examination....