Ontario Medical Malpractice Insights

Case header: Bradley v Wang with subtitle 'Direct observation outweighs a physician's evidence of usual practice' on a dark blue banner with 'Case Comment' and professional labels at top corners.

Bradley v Wang: A Misplaced Injection, Usual Practice Evidence, and the Mitigation Burden

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismisses Dr. Wang’s appeal in Bradley v Wang, upholding findings that a tetanus vaccine was injected in the wrong part of the arm, that the misplacement caused an adhesive capsulitis, and that no mitigation defence was made out. The decision confirms that counterfactual proof can be assembled from evidence excluding the competing explanation, and that a defendant who cannot show suitable alternative work was available loses the mitigation argument regardless of the plaintiff’s own efforts.

Ibrahimova v Cavanagh: The Court of Appeal Upholds a Causation Finding Built on Inference

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismisses Dr. Cavanagh’s causation appeal in Ibrahimova v Cavanagh, upholding findings about what would have happened at a tertiary hospital the patient never reached on the relevant day. The decision confirms that a plaintiff can prove a counterfactual treatment path through a specialist from the receiving discipline, without institutional witnesses, and that a defendant who calls no expert in that specialty is unlikely to recast the resulting findings as speculation.

Navy title card reading "Dementia in the Hallway: Hallway care and the cognitively impaired patient in Ontario" from paulcahill.ca.

Five Days in a Hallway: Dementia, Delirium, and Hospital Liability in Ontario

A Saskatoon family went public this week after an 88-year-old man with early Alzheimer’s spent nearly five days on a bed in an emergency department hallway. The story is from Saskatchewan, but the conditions are familiar in Ontario, and the risks are sharpest for the patient who cannot orient himself, use a call bell, or tell anyone something has changed. Where the line falls between a strained system and an actionable failure is narrower than the headlines suggest.

Navy title card reading "CPSO v Hart: Ketamine prescribing, a no-complaints release, and a suspension" from paulcahill.ca

CPSO v Hart: Ketamine Prescribing, a No-Complaints Release, and a Six-Month Suspension

A physician’s practice was found deficient across assessment, consent, prescribing, monitoring, record keeping and OHIP billing, on the evidence of two complainants and 34 further charts reviewed by two independent assessors. Patients were also asked to sign a form promising not to sue him and not to complain to the College. A look at what the Tribunal did with that, and why a discipline finding is not compensation.

Navy title card reading "Pelrine v Chung: Late expert reports and the interests of justice" from paulcahill.ca.

Pelrine v Chung: Late Expert Reports, Rule 53.08, and the Interests of Justice

Rule 53.08 was tightened in 2022 to stop the routine late service of expert reports. In Pelrine v Chung, the Divisional Court held that the correction can be overdone, and that the interests of justice apply throughout the rule rather than only at its second stage. Two excluded defence reports were let in, thirteen months before a jury trial.

Navy title card reading "CNO v Paulson: missed medications, false charting, and a three-month suspension" from paulcahill.ca.

CNO v Paulson: False Charting, Missed Medications, and the Electronic Audit Trail

A registered practical nurse admitted failures across two Guelph hospitals: an admission assessment backdated without notation, medications charted but never given, and a bladder scan reported but not performed. The CNO Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission for a three-month suspension with twelve months of oversight. What the electronic audit trail proved, and where a discipline finding stops short of a civil claim.

Navy title card reading "Scott v Regional Health Authority B, Personnel files, privilege and patient privacy at discovery" from paulcahill.ca, labelled Case Comment.

Scott v Regional Health Authority B: What a Class Action Discloses at Discovery

In the certified Moncton oxytocin class action, a New Brunswick court has ordered the defendant nurse’s personnel file produced, rejected most of the hospital’s quality-improvement privilege claims, and refused to disclose the private health records of other patients. The disclosure reasoning is persuasive only in Ontario, but it tracks the Ontario approach closely.

Navy title card reading Common Misunderstandings About Medical Malpractice, with the subhead What patients in Ontario often get wrong, from paulcahill.ca.

Common Misunderstandings About Medical Malpractice in Ontario

Some of the most common beliefs about medical malpractice in Ontario are simply wrong, and they cut both ways: pushing some people toward hopeless claims and others away from good ones. Here are the misunderstandings I see most often, set against how the law actually works, from what counts as negligence to limitation periods, College complaints, causation, and the cap on damages.

Navy title card reading "Clarey v Gillis, A devastating outcome that was not negligence" from paulcahill.ca

Clarey v Gillis: A Near-Fatal Surgical Complication and No Breach of the Standard of Care

Norman Clarey nearly died after a bowel resection led to a failed anastomosis and a permanent stoma. A Prince Edward Island court nonetheless dismissed his negligence, breach of contract, and informed consent claims, finding Dr. Gillis met the standard of care throughout and that causation was not proven. As an out-of-province decision it is persuasive but not binding in Ontario, though it applies largely Ontario and Supreme Court of Canada authority.

Informed. Equipped. Empowered.

Informed.
Equipped.
Empowered.