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.
Ontario Court of Appeal affirms reduction of contingency fee from $4.1 million to $3.25 million in $14 million birth injury settlement involving vulnerable client.
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the trial verdict in Shaw Estate v Handler, affirming the standard of care to recall a patient after critical CT findings.
Ontario Court of Appeal reinstates novel psychiatric malpractice claim by family member of patient who killed his father, sending duty of care question to trial.
Manitoba Court of Appeal affirms dismissal of delayed colon cancer diagnosis claim. The Benhaim framework on adverse inferences and statistical evidence in causation.
A psychiatrist was seriously assaulted by a patient. The BC Court of Appeal confirmed that hospitals owe a duty of care to medical staff, and that the standard is contextual.
Three physicians on a multi-disciplinary team failed to obtain informed consent for an elective AVM procedure. The Court of Appeal upheld an $8.5M judgment.
A medication error caused real distress but no compensable mental injury. The Court of Appeal applied the Saadati threshold and dismissed the claim.
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld Paul Cahill’s trial verdict in Hacopian-Armen Estate v Mahmoud, clarifying the foreseeability test in delayed cancer cases.
Free, confidential consultations. Paul reviews every potential case personally and tells you honestly whether it merits investigation.