Source: https://www.markgcarter.com/blog/compelling-a-plaintiff-to-attend-a-second-ime
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:09:43+00:00

Document:
Rule 30(2) is a discretionary rule, and the discretion must be exercised judicially. An independent examination is granted to ensure a “reasonable equality between the parties in the preparation of a case for trial”: Wildemann v. Webster at p. 11 from the separate concurring reasons of Chief Justice McEachern.
 Reasonable equality does not mean that the defendant should be able to match expert for expert or report for report: McKay v. Passmore, 2005 BCSC 570 (CanLII) at para. 17, and Christopherson v. Krahn, 2002 BCSC 1356 (CanLII) at para. 9.
 A second exam will not be allowed for the purpose of attempting to bolster an earlier opinion of another expert. That is, there must be some question or matter that could not have been dealt with at the earlier examination: Trahan v. West Coast Amusements Ltd., 2000 BCSC 691 (CanLII) at para. 48, and Norsworthy v. Greene, 2009 BCSC 173 (CanLII) at para. 18.
 There is a higher standard required where the defendant seeks a second or subsequent medical exam of the plaintiff: McKay v. Passmore, supra, at para. 17 and para. 29.
 The application must be timely. That is, the proposed examination should be complete and a report available in sufficient time to comply with the rules of admissibility and to allow enough time for the plaintiff to assess and respond if necessary: Vermeulen-Miller v. Sanders, 2007 BCSC 1258 (CanLII) at paras. 47-48, relying in part on Goss v. Harder, 2001 BCSC 1823 (CanLII).
 Finally, subsequent independent medical examinations should be reserved for cases where there are some exceptional circumstances: Wildemann v. Webster, supra, at p. 3.
 In my view, there is nothing in the language of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, or in logic or reason, that would mandate exceptional circumstances as a requirement for a second IME. As noted by Blok J. in Kenny, a plaintiff displaying multifactorial injuries may appropriately be required to attend IMEs by a number of specialists (at para. 62). There is nothing exceptional in that.
 Multiple examinations may be appropriate and necessary where a variety of injuries are alleged, or the etiology of illness is not straightforward. In exercising its discretion on an application pursuant to Rule 7‑6, the court must consider the effect of refusing the order sought on the conduct of the trial.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.