
Kotorashvili v Lee: When a Surgeon Deviates from His Own Treatment Plan
An Ontario orthopaedic surgeon was found liable after removing clavicle hardware six weeks early without revisiting his own documented treatment plan.
Representing Victims of Medical Malpractice Across Ontario
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.

An Ontario orthopaedic surgeon was found liable after removing clavicle hardware six weeks early without revisiting his own documented treatment plan.

A young mother left in a permanent vegetative state after C-section. The court found anesthesiology negligence but accepted that an amniotic fluid embolism was the unavoidable cause.

On December 1, 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed a medical malpractice lawsuit brought by a young woman who suffered a stroke after taking birth control medication provided by her family physician who allegedly failed to advise her of the increased risk of stroke associated with that particular brand of birth control pill (Yaz).

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.

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.

Cauda equina syndrome is a surgical emergency. The legal claims that follow are almost always about whether the diagnosis and treatment were timely enough.

When can a defendant compel genetic testing in a medical malpractice claim? An analysis of Klinck v Dorsay and Preece v Nicholson from a 2023 OTLA paper.

A settlement on behalf of the family of a 39-year-old mother of two whose breast cancer was diagnosed too late after a missed opportunity to investigate.

September 2023 coverage in CP24 and the Brampton Guardian of the Thompson v Handler trial decision finding an ER physician negligent for the death of a 34-year-old mother.

A delayed-diagnosis cancer claim was dismissed at standard of care and causation, with a 40% contributory negligence finding for repeated failures to follow up.

Roughly 9% of strokes are initially misdiagnosed in the emergency setting. A practical guide to how stroke claims are investigated and proven in Ontario.

A trial judge dismissed a medical malpractice claim against two ER physicians, finding the standard of care was met and that earlier testing would not have changed the outcome.
Free, confidential consultations. Paul reviews every potential case personally and tells you honestly whether it merits investigation.