JUDGMENT

Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] The plaintiff (respondent before us) was a patient of the defendant (appellant before us). He claims that he is a victim of the defendant's negligence. After the action was filed the defendant took out a summons in which he asked essentially for an order that the parties exchange reports of their respective experts whom they propose to call at the trial. The object of the application was clear enough. It was to shut out the plaintiff from calling an expert whose report had not been furnished to the defendant before hand. The application was resisted and failed. The defendant appealed to us. That appeal was dismissed. The reasons are now produced.

[2] The relevant rule of court that governs the exchange of expert evidence is O. 34 r. 4(2), paras (f) and (j) which empower a court to:

(f) order either party to the action to furnish the report of an expert and fix the time for the delivery of such report;

and

(j) subject to all just exceptions as to privilege, direct the parties to make any disclosure or provide any information which the Judge considers relevant to the issues in the action.

[3] In resisting the appeal, counsel for the plaintiff said that these