What is the effect of requiring a plaintiff to produce full disclosure of his medical records?

In Gergely v. Ellingson, 11th September, 1978 (not yet reported), Farris C.J.B.C., in granting orders under RR. 30(4) and 30(1), made the following pronouncement concerning the “modern philosophy” of the law, which, granted that there is a discretion to impose terms and conditions, I have found of assistance in resolving the issue of whether the respondent should be ordered to make full disclosure of his medical reports: “I take the position that this rule is remedial and it is intended to give litigants the right to know each other’s case in advance. It is part of the modern philosophy that there should not be trials by ambush but that there should be full disclosure between the two parties in order (a) that the matter may be settled without going to court, or (b) that, if it goes to court, there will be a trial with both sides being fully informed as to the other side’s case.”