The plaintiff's attendance at an independent medical examination (IME) with a Vocational Consultant was compelled through an application. The plaintiff had claimed injuries from motor vehicle accidents, and the trial was scheduled for September 11, 2023. The defendant arranged two IMEs, but the plaintiff agreed to only one and declined the Vocational Consultant. Consequently, the defendant filed an application for the IME with the Vocational Consultant. The court examined the legal framework for IMEs and emphasized the need for the defendant to establish necessity. The plaintiff argued against the necessity of the IME, citing a lack of evidence. As the defendant failed to meet the onus, the application was dismissed, and the plaintiff was awarded costs.