
Self-Represented Litigants in Girao v Cunningham: Commentary in Law Times
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.
Representing Victims of Medical Malpractice Across Ontario
Civil procedure is the body of rules that governs how a lawsuit is conducted, from the issuance of the claim through pleadings, discovery, motions, pre-trial, and trial. In Ontario, most medical malpractice actions proceed in the Superior Court of Justice under the Rules of Civil Procedure, and procedural decisions often shape the course and cost of a case as much as the substantive law does.
Recurring procedural issues in medical malpractice litigation include the expert evidence requirements of Rule 53.03, the framework for summary judgment refined by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 SCR 87, the scope of documentary and oral discovery, the addition of parties, and the management of the long timelines typical of expert-driven cases. Procedural rulings can determine whether a claim survives to trial at all.
Posts tagged Civil Procedure analyze Ontario decisions on the procedural rules that govern how medical malpractice actions are litigated.

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.

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.

Why expert selection drives outcomes in Ontario medical malpractice cases. Paul Cahill on finding the right expert from an OTLA webinar.
Free, confidential consultations. Paul reviews every potential case personally and tells you honestly whether it merits investigation.