What is the test for determining whether a duly qualified medical professional can examine a plaintiff pursuant to Rule 217?

The Defendant Hagens argues that the rule in Alberta is not as stringent as in Ontario. In Jacobson v. Sveen, 2001 ABQB 989, [2001] A.J. No. 1460 Veit J. of this Court wrote at para. 23: The defendants propose that a reasonable test to use when deciding whether a certain duly qualified medical health professional can examine a plaintiff pursuant to Rule 217 is an "air of reality" test, i.e. the defendant must demonstrate that its theories about a plaintiff's injuries and damages require the requested Rule 217 examination or testing and touch upon one or more of the matters in issue, and could place before the court expert health testimony dealing with those issues. I adopt that test as reasonable and fair.