Representing Victims of Medical Malpractice Across Ontario

Articles Tagged

Appellate Decisions

Appellate decisions are the published reasons of appellate courts: the Court of Appeal for Ontario, equivalent provincial appellate courts, the Federal Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada. They are the most authoritative source of medical malpractice doctrine in this country, because they bind every trial court within their jurisdiction and they shape how the law will be applied in subsequent cases.

Appellate decisions in medical malpractice typically address one or more of the following issues: the elements of negligence as applied to a medical fact pattern, the standard of appellate review of trial findings of fact and credibility, the admissibility and weight of expert evidence, the interpretation of the Limitations Act, 2002 and other procedural statutes, and the quantum of damages, including challenges to non-pecuniary loss assessments and future-care cost calculations. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Housen v Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 SCR 235 governs the standard of review for appellate intervention in trial findings and is a frequent reference in medical malpractice appeals.

Posts tagged Appellate Decisions analyze rulings from Ontario and other Canadian appellate courts, with particular attention to how each decision changes, refines, or reaffirms the law that trial-level practitioners apply in Ontario medical malpractice cases.

11 articles View all topics →
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.

Read More »
Navy title card reading "Ibrahimova v Cavanagh: The Court of Appeal upholds a causation finding built on inference" from paulcahill.ca

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.

Read More »
Have a Case Like This?

Concerned about medical negligence?
Talk to Paul directly.

Free, confidential consultations. Paul reviews every potential case personally and tells you honestly whether it merits investigation.