In Siemens v. Motruk and Coote, 2000 BCSC 1593, Burnyeat J. dealt with an appeal of order by the Master requiring the plaintiff should provide blood and urine samples for analysis, the order having been made pursuant to Rule 30(1) – now Rule 7-6(1). Burnyeat J. noted, after reviewing the evidence, the Master had concluded a taking of the urine sample would not be invasive and would result in only a limited amount of time being expended by the plaintiff. At paras. 12-15 Burnyeat J. states:
Get a full legal research memo!
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.