What limitations exist, if any, on a defendant’s ability to obtain a plaintiff’s complete medical history, both pre and post incident?

Every party to civil litigation in British Columbia must list and disclose all non-privileged documents in that party’s possession, power, or control that are material (and, if requested, relevant) to the issues in the litigation as set out in the pleadings. The test for materiality is generally considered to be any document that could be used by any party at trial to prove or disprove a material and pleaded fact. The test for materiality is narrower than the test for relevance. The test for relevance is whether the document contains information which may either directly or indirectly advance the case of the party demanding production or damage the case of the adversary. Relevance is a fairly low threshold.

There is no bright-line rule in British Columbia requiring a plaintiff to disclose complete pre- and post-accident medical records. Whether any of the plaintiff’s medical records are disclosable is always evaluated by whether the medical records are material or relevant based on the individual facts, circumstances, and issues of the case. Medical records from the date of accident to the date of trial are typically relevant and producible without dispute. Disclosure of pre-accident medical records is often more contentious. Typically, British Columbia courts will order plaintiffs to disclose medical records for the period two years prior to an accident. This is generally considered sufficient for defendants to properly investigate the existence of pre-existing conditions. To obtain disclosure of earlier medical records, defendants must provide evidence that greater disclosure is required. Fallahpour-Sichani v Harapnuik, 2019 BCSC 2046 at para 25. In this situation, the Defendant must establish the relevance of the demanded documents based on the pleadings as well as some evidentiary basis showing the demanded documents exist and relate to a matter in issue. British Columbia courts are normally reluctant to order broad disclosure of pre-accident medical records which unnecessarily infringe the principles of proportionality and/or the Plaintiff’s privacy interests unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Kaladjian v. Jose, 2012 BCSC 357 at paras 61—65 and 72—78; Hyvarinen v. Burdett, 2012 BCSC 1034 at paras 19—20.