December 13, 2016
In the recent decision of Orr v. Pringle, 2015 BCSC 2644, the court granted the Plaintiff’s application to be allowed to leave ICBC’s Medical Examination if forced to wait longer than 30 minutes for the examination to begin. The court also prohibited ICBC from conducting surveillance of the plaintiff during the exam. The court said:
 I will order that the plaintiff will be at liberty to leave if either examination does not proceed within 30 minutes, but I am not prepared to make the order that that is deemed to have satisfied the requirement to attend an IME. In other words, he can leave if he wants to after 30 minutes on these specific days, but there may be reasons for that delay that may justify the defendant in applying for a replacement date. I am not going to make any comment on whether they will get it or not, but I am not prepared to deem attendance.
 As for surveillance, I agree that is not simply a matter of the plaintiff being potentially subject to surveillance while he is in a public place at a time chosen by the defendant or whenever they can find him. This is a matter where he is at a place at a time that has been ordered by the Court. It is a bit analogous to a plaintiff being under surveillance in the courthouse and that is not appropriate. So I will grant that condition.
The full text of the decision can be found here: http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2016/2016bcsc2238/2016bcsc2238.html?resultIndex=1
The McQuarrie Hunter Personal Injury Blog is maintained by the ICBC and personal injury practice group at McQuarrie Hunter LLP.
Can a Mortgage Secure Funds that Have Been Previously Advanced to a Borrower?
Share: In a typical mortgage scenario, a lender advances funds to a borrower at the time…Read more