In reasons for judgment released last week, the court in Baxter v. Shelton, 2017 BCSC 953 denied the defence request for an IME with a Vocational Psychologist due to the defence having a previous IME with a defence Psychiatrist (from whom they had no ordered a report). Master Keighley said:
 ...counsel for the defence determined to have a vocational rehabilitation assessment done and scheduled an appointment for March 24, 2017, before Dr. Colleen Quee Newell, a vocational rehabilitation consultant. Plaintiff's counsel took objection to the plaintiff's attendance at that appointment and indicated in any event that the plaintiff was going to be away at the time of that appointment.
 It appears that another appointment has now been arranged but with a different expert, a Dr. Dennis Magrega, who is an expert in vocational psychology, and his assistant Kim Eyrl. That appointment is scheduled for April 5, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. at the offices of IMA Solutions in Vancouver.
 Now, here we do not know specifically what issues Dr. Axler dealt with during the examination. We know what he was asked to do. We do not have a report. There is nothing in the material to suggest to me that there is some issue which has arisen since the time that referral was made which could not have been dealt with at the time of that examination.
 It is difficult in circumstances where a report of an expert with an overlapping expertise has not been produced to make a determination as to whether that subsequent examination is required for the purpose of levelling the playing field or addressing some issue which could not have been raised at the time of the original examination. The onus is on the defendant to establish those issues. I am not satisfied on this application that the defendant has done so.
 The application is dismissed.
The full decision can be found here: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/17/09/2017BCSC0953.htm