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.
Paul Cahill settled a surgical negligence claim arising from an aortic injury during a laparoscopic nephrectomy that caused spinal cord ischemia.
Free, confidential consultations. Paul reviews every potential case personally and tells you honestly whether it merits investigation.