In Adams v. Cook (2010), 100 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.), the defendant sought an independent medical examination of the plaintiff by a specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation. The plaintiff would consent only if the examination was audio recorded. In the initial motion, plaintiff's counsel swore an affidavit alleging there was a systemic bias by those conducting IMEs. He made no allegations against the specific specialist selected by the defendant. The motions judge refused to order the IME without audiotape and the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal. The defendant then appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. In order to show that audio or video recording is necessary, there must be something more than an allegation of general bias among doctors who perform IMEs; there has to be something specific to the case.
The Court was invited to opine on whether there should be routine recording of IMEs in all cases; however, it declined to do so, preferring to leave this issue for the Rules Committee.
Independent medical examinations seem to be an area ripe for disputes between plaintiffs and defendants. The Court of Appeal's decision is one that may assist the defence in opposing requests to record the examination, although it seems that the Court of Appeal has left the door open for plaintiffs to argue for recording of IMEs in specific cases.