that, as a result he ordered an urgent CT scan. Dr. Murphy also
recalled that he had ordered an x-ray as a preliminary step in
order to secure a CT scan appointment to rule in or out the top
two conditions that he was investigating (one of which was CES).
He agreed that it was important to rule out nerve impingement,
nerve involvement or CES as quickly as possible.
 The appellants contend that, prior to the examinations for
discovery, they were unaware that Dr. Murphy had been involved
in Mr. Morrison’s care other than in consultation with Ms. Boulanger, or that CES was part of Dr. Murphy’s differential diagnosis. It was only when they learned these facts that they could
conclude that Dr. Murphy ought to have undertaken a rectal
examination. According to the appellants, the fact that a rectal
examination was not done is significant only in conjunction with
the knowledge that Dr. Murphy was actively looking to rule in
or out CES.
( ii) The claim against Susan Boulanger
 Susan Boulanger, a nurse practitioner, was responsible for
Mr. Morrison’s care on June 28, 2011 and July 6, 2011. The rec-
ords indicate that she recorded his symptoms, assessed his lower
back pain, ordered an x-ray and provided prescriptions for medi-
cation and physiotherapy.
 The core allegations against Ms. Boulanger are that she
did not order x-rays on a “stat” or urgent basis, that she did not
follow up on the x-rays within 24 to 48 hours, and that she gave
the wrong discharge instructions to Mr. Morrison, instructing
him to go to the hospital only if his pain became “unbearable”.
 Ms. Boulanger’s counsel contends that all of the new facts
allegedly discovered from Dr. Murphy’s examination for discovery
were contained in the clinical notes and records that were in
appellants’ counsel’s hands at the latest by October 2013. The
fact that Ms. Boulanger was the person who ordered the x-ray but
not urgently is apparent in the clinical notes and records. It was
also clear from the records that no one followed up or received the
x-ray results within 24 to 48 hours. It was also clear what discharge instructions were given.
 As is the case with Dr. Murphy, the important information
the appellants say they only obtained at the examinations for discovery was that both Dr. Murphy and Ms. Boulanger were considering CES as part of their differential diagnosis. This fact was not
recorded in the clinical notes, and this is what made their subsequent delay in investigating the condition negligent. It was only
revealed in Dr. Murphy’s examination for discovery that Mr. Morrison’s x-ray was ordered as a stepping stone for a CT scan or