In matters calling for special or expert knowledge, the court may not have sufficient knowledge to draw proper inferences from the evidence such that it may adjudicate on the matters in issue. Regarding independent medical examinations, the Committee was of the view that the procedures under Rule 217 function quite well and should be retained subject to certain issues and proposals. The specific issues addressed by the Committee regarding expert evidence were the timelines for the exchange of expert reports and sanctions for failing to abide by timelines. The Committee also raises questions of whether there should be prescribed criteria for the form of expert reports, whether there should be a limit to the number of experts each party may call, whether joint experts should be required or encouraged, whether the Rules should permit the court to appoint its own experts, assessors or referees, and whether Alberta should adopt any of the recent innovations in expert evidence used in other jurisdictions. Specific issues addressed regarding independent medical examinations are: when and by whom may a medical examination be requested; should the medical examination be extended to an examination of any party if their physical or mental condition is in issue; who should bear the cost; should the person being examined have the option of videotaping the examination; should the distinction between “duly qualified medical practitioners” and “health care professionals” be retained; should the Rules specify when the medical professional can call for other experts to assist in the exam; and must a defendant obtain his or her own medical report before being able to obtain the plaintiff’s medical report.