
Cross-Examining the Defence Expert at the OBA Anatomy of a Trial
How to cross-examine the defence expert and advance your case theory. From the 2024 OBA Anatomy of a Trial continuing professional development program.
Representing Victims of Medical Malpractice Across Ontario
A civil jury trial is a trial in which a jury, rather than a judge alone, decides the questions of fact and delivers the verdict. In Ontario civil cases either party may serve a jury notice, and medical malpractice defendants have historically done so in many cases, making the civil jury a recurring and strategically significant feature of this area of practice.
Jury trials shape how a medical malpractice case is prepared and presented. The evidence, including complex expert testimony, must be made comprehensible to lay jurors; the trial judge’s charge and the questions put to the jury take on particular importance; and the jury’s verdict is delivered without reasons, which affects the scope for appeal. The availability and conduct of civil juries has also been the subject of ongoing debate and procedural change in Ontario.
Posts tagged Civil Jury Trial analyze Ontario medical malpractice decisions involving juries, including jury selection, the charge, and the treatment of jury verdicts on appeal.

How to cross-examine the defence expert and advance your case theory. From the 2024 OBA Anatomy of a Trial continuing professional development program.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial after a trial judge discharged the jury on her own motion and dismissed the malpractice claim with reasons 90% copied from the defence.

Reflections on two medical malpractice trials in post-COVID Ontario, one jury and one judge-alone. From Gluckstein’s 2022 Risky Business CLE.

Where literature, medicine, and the law intersect at a medical malpractice trial in Ontario. From a 2022 OTLA medical malpractice conference panel.

A jury verdict of $11.5 million for cerebral palsy, upheld at the Court of Appeal, following a community obstetrician’s failure to recognize and refer twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome.

St. Catharines Standard coverage of the Court of Appeal’s July 2020 affirmance of the Woods v Jackiewicz jury verdict. Bill Sawchuk interviews Paul Cahill.

Three episodes on the Inside Medical Malpractice podcast with Chris Rokosh. Paul on the trials of Hacopian, O’Neill-Renouf, and Woods v Jackiewicz.

Paul Cahill on Girao v Cunningham, s. 52 of the Evidence Act, and trial fairness for self-represented litigants. From a May 2020 Law Times feature.

Mass PI advertising, jury perception, and the reputation of the bar. Paul Cahill in a 2020 Canadian Lawyer feature with Richard Parsons.

Paul Cahill’s June 2019 Lawyer’s Daily article on when to ask for a jury in Ontario medical malpractice cases, drawing on his trial experience and the law on jury notices and appellate deference.

St. Catharines Standard coverage of the April 2019 jury verdict in Woods v Jackiewicz, an $11.5 million obstetric negligence verdict for cerebral palsy.

Paul Cahill won an $11.5 million jury verdict against an obstetrician whose failure to refer to a perinatologist caused a catastrophic cerebral palsy birth injury.
Free, confidential consultations. Paul reviews every potential case personally and tells you honestly whether it merits investigation.