Representing Victims of Medical Malpractice Across Ontario

Articles Tagged

Causation

Causation is the second element a plaintiff must prove in an Ontario medical malpractice claim, after standard of care and before damages. The plaintiff must show that the defendant’s negligence caused the injury, ordinarily by satisfying the “but for” test: but for the negligent act or omission, the injury would not have occurred. The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed this approach in Clements v Clements, 2012 SCC 32, [2012] 2 SCR 181, while recognizing a limited “material contribution to risk” exception in narrow circumstances.

In medical cases, causation is often the most contested element. A plaintiff who proves a clear breach of the standard of care may still lose at trial if expert evidence cannot bridge the gap between the breach and the injury. Lost-chance arguments, delayed-diagnosis fact patterns, and cases involving multiple potential causes raise some of the hardest causation questions in Canadian tort law.

Posts tagged Causation analyze how Ontario courts have approached these issues across obstetrical, oncology, emergency, and surgical fact patterns, including appellate decisions that shape how trial judges instruct themselves on the test.

77 articles View all topics →
Navy title card reading "Brown v Meaney: The limits of clinical judgment, affirmed on appeal" from paulcahill.ca, a Paul Cahill case comment.

Brown v Meaney: Clinical Judgment, Informed Consent, and Commonsense Causation on Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal in Brown v Meaney, upholding findings that two pediatric neurologists breached the standard of care and the duty to obtain informed consent when they abandoned a pyridoxine trial in an infant with a rare epilepsy. The decision affirms that a defensible first impression does not excuse the failure to revisit it, and that causation need not be proven with scientific precision.

Read More »
Navy title card reading "Ewashko v Hugo, Case Comment" with the line "A delayed urgent C-section and a preventable birth injury," from paulcahill.ca

Ewashko v Hugo: A Delayed C-Section and a Preventable Birth Injury

An Alberta court found that an urgent C-section taking 101 minutes fell below the standard of care, that two physicians’ combined 50 minutes of unnecessary delay was not a defensible judgment call, and that the delay caused a child’s cerebral palsy. A look at the timeliness standard, the causation reasoning, and why this Alberta decision is persuasive, not binding, in Ontario.

Read More »
Navy title card reading "JB v Bailey" with the subtitle "Admitted negligence, but causation was not proved", labelled Case Comment, from paulcahill.ca.

JB v Bailey: Admitted Negligence Is Not Proof of Causation in a Birth Injury Case

Dr. Bailey admitted that her management of labour was negligent and that it caused a hypoxic brain injury at birth. The plaintiffs still lost, because they could not prove that the brain injury caused the child’s lasting impairments. JB v Bailey is an Alberta decision, persuasive only in Ontario, but it is a clear reminder that admitted negligence and admitted injury are not the same as proven causation.

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.