What is the relevance of Rule 11‑6(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Procedure requiring a physical examination?

In Wright v. Brauer, 2010 BCSC 1282, Justice Savage considered an application brought on similar timelines to the case at bar. The court discusses the application of Rule 11‑6(4), finding that it was enacted to “fill a lacuna in the Rules”: para. 12. The court also finds that under this new Rule, and considering the timing of the application, the applicant's relief was limited to "truly responsive rebuttal evidence": para. 14. Justice Savage could find no basis on the evidence before him to show why a physical examination was required to produce a responsive report.

More recently, the same issue was considered by Justice Cullen in Luedecke v. Hillman, 2010 BCSC 1538, an appeal from a master’s order which allowed an examination to provide “truly responsive” evidence. The court upheld the master's order, determining that the necessary evidentiary basis for an examination was found in the material presented. In doing so, the court confirms that: To reach the requisite threshold under Rule 11-6(4) the applicant must establish a basis of necessity for the examination to properly respond to the expert witness whose report is served under subrule (3) by the other party: para. 54.