CPSO v Turek: A Two-Month Suspension for COVID-19 Misinformation
The OPSDT imposed a two-month suspension and a reprimand on a physician for unprofessional COVID-19 commentary, calibrated to the lower end of the discipline spectrum.
Insights & Analysis
Informed.
Informed.
Equipped.
Empowered.
Plain-language insight on medical malpractice law in Ontario. Practical guidance, case analysis, and updates from a trial-focused practice. No legal jargon. No marketing fluff. Just what you need to know.
Find an Article
Or Browse by Topic
Articles on this site are for general information only and do not constitute legal advice. Reading articles does not create a lawyer-client relationship.
Scott v RHA: A Class Action Denied on Common Issues
A proposed class action against the Moncton Hospital and a fired nurse over allegedly unprescribed oxytocin was denied certification because individual issues would predominate.
From Start to Finish: How to Ensure Your Expert is Permitted to Testify at Trial
Paul Cahill’s Winter 2023/2024 Litigator article on finding the right expert, navigating Westerhof and the Mohan/White Burgess framework, and surviving defence challenges to expert evidence at trial.
Sutherland v Booth: A Tragic Stroke Case Defeated on the Expert Evidence
A 27-year-old woman died from a missed cerebellar stroke after an ER discharge. The malpractice claim was dismissed when the plaintiff’s expert evidence unravelled at trial.
Paul Cahill in The Litigator: Expert Witness Qualification at Trial
Paul Cahill’s article on expert witness qualification was published in the Winter 2023/2024 edition of The Litigator, OTLA’s flagship publication.
2023 in Review: Self-Represented Litigants in Medical Malpractice
Three 2023 decisions from Alberta, Ontario, and Newfoundland show why self-represented plaintiffs almost never succeed in medical malpractice litigation.
Hanson-Tasker v Ewart: The Limits of the Snell Adverse Inference
A pre-term newborn with kernicterus lost her causation case despite a finding that her family physicians had breached the standard of care. The Snell adverse inference did not save the claim.
Tripp v Ross: A Cancer Causation Defeat With Pain-and-Suffering Damages
A surgeon admitted he stopped a colonoscopy without finding the cancer. The trial judge held the death was inevitable but awarded damages for additional suffering.
Willick v Willard: An Appeal Dismissed With a Note on Trial Reasons
The Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed a malpractice trial loss but observed that the trial reasons had not treated the appellants’ claim with appropriate dignity.