Plaintiff ordered to sign IME consent form or “risk claim being struck”


In reasons for judgment released today, the court in Gill v. Wal-Mart Corporation, 2017 BCSC 135, ordered the plaintiff to sign an “IME consent form” as part of his attendance at a defence-funded Independent Medical Examination.  The plaintiff in Gill refused to sign the consent form, and the defendant brought an application in Chambers.  The presiding Master dismissed the defence motion, ordering that the plaintiff could not be compelled to sign the form.  The defence then appealed the Master’s decision to a judge of the BC Supreme Court.  In allowing the defence appeal, Mr. Justice Funt wrote as follows:

[28]         … the court can order that a plaintiff sign a medical examiner’s reasonable form in order for an IME to be conducted by the medical examiner…The rule is that where an IME is to be conducted, the court will order a reasonable form of consent to be signed by the examinee.

[35]         The Master ruled that Dr. Travlos’s form of consent for the IME to be conducted by him to be not reasonable…

[36]         With respect, the form of consent is reasonable.

[40]         …In the case at bar… the court is not forcing the plaintiff to sign the form of consent. If the plaintiff chooses not to sign the form of consent, the plaintiff’s claim may be struck. It is the plaintiff’s choice.

[51]         The plaintiff is ordered to attend an independent medical examination to be conducted by Dr. Travlos at a time and location arranged by counsel.

[52]         The plaintiff is ordered to sign the subject form of consent used by Dr. Travlos. If the plaintiff refuses to sign the form of consent, the defendant, Mr. Pandher, is at liberty to apply to have the plaintiff’s claim struck.

[53]         Mr. Pandher is entitled to three-quarters of his costs at Scale B for this hearing and the hearing before the Master in any event of the cause.

The full text of the decision can be found here:



Related Articles