Gulamani v. Chandra

Gulamani v. Chandra

The court ordered production, within 14 days, of examining doctors' notes and recordings that document the plaintiff's history, the doctors' observations/findings, and tests/questionnaires, excluding documents containing doctors' opinions or advice; and ordered Health Services to provide counts, descriptions and dates of Dr. Munro's TOS-related services and procedures for the past 20 years (or as far back as records exist), but refused to order production of specific dollar amounts billed as irrelevant.

Citation
2009 BCSC 1393
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Salima Gulamani (aka Salima Manji); Defendant/respondent: Dutt Chandra; Defendant/respondent: Ronald Chandra; Defendant/respondent: Fardin Doorandish
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Documents Application (interlocutory)
Outcome
Application granted in part and denied in part
Legal Topics
Production of Expert Examining Notes, Non Party Production Under Rule 26(11), Solicitor's Brief Privilege, Expert Disclosure and Underlying Data, Medical Billing Records Relevance
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Evidence Personal Injury Administrative Law Production of Expert Examining Notes Non Party Production Under Rule 26(11) Solicitor's Brief Privilege Expert Disclosure and Underlying Data +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Salima Gulamani (aka Salima Manji)

Plaintiff/applicant

Dutt Chandra

Defendant/respondent

Ronald Chandra

Defendant/respondent

Fardin Doorandish

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Documents Application (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are examining doctors' notes, recorded history, observations and raw test data producible despite solicitor's brief privilege?
  2. 2 May a non-party custodian (Health Services) be ordered under Rule 26(11) to produce practitioner billing records and related procedural information?
  3. 3 Is the amount billed by Dr. Munro relevant and producible?

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered production, within 14 days, of examining doctors' notes and recordings that document the plaintiff's history, the doctors' observations/findings, and tests/questionnaires, excluding documents containing doctors' opinions or advice; and ordered Health Services to provide counts, descriptions and dates of Dr. Munro's TOS-related services and procedures for the past 20 years (or as far back as records exist), but refused to order production of specific dollar amounts billed as irrelevant.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and denied in part

Orders

  • Costs of this application to be in the cause