Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal for Ontario is the province’s highest court and the final domestic appellate court for most Ontario medical malpractice decisions, given the rarity of leave being granted to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court of Appeal hears appeals from final orders of the Superior Court of Justice (other than family law matters) and from select decisions of the Divisional Court.

In medical malpractice litigation, the Court of Appeal’s role is doubly important. Its decisions are binding on every trial-level judge in Ontario, and its analysis of standard of care, causation, expert evidence, and damages frames how the trial bench approaches these issues. Recent decisions have refined the application of the Clements v Clements causation framework, addressed the limits of permissible expert opinion under White Burgess Langille Inman v Abbott and Haliburton Co, and continued the appellate court’s long line of decisions on the Reibl v Hughes informed consent test.

Posts tagged Court of Appeal for Ontario analyze the court’s medical malpractice decisions and what they mean for trial practice in this province.

Case header: Bradley v Wang with subtitle 'Direct observation outweighs a physician's evidence of usual practice' on a dark blue banner with 'Case Comment' and professional labels at top corners.

Bradley v Wang: A Misplaced Injection, Usual Practice Evidence, and the Mitigation Burden

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismisses Dr. Wang’s appeal in Bradley v Wang, upholding findings that a tetanus vaccine was injected in the wrong part of the arm, that the misplacement caused an adhesive capsulitis, and that no mitigation defence was made out. The decision confirms that counterfactual proof can be assembled from evidence excluding the competing explanation, and that a defendant who cannot show suitable alternative work was available loses the mitigation argument regardless of the plaintiff’s own efforts.

August 8, 2026

Ibrahimova v Cavanagh: The Court of Appeal Upholds a Causation Finding Built on Inference

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismisses Dr. Cavanagh’s causation appeal in Ibrahimova v Cavanagh, upholding findings about what would have happened at a tertiary hospital the patient never reached on the relevant day. The decision confirms that a plaintiff can prove a counterfactual treatment path through a specialist from the receiving discipline, without institutional witnesses, and that a defendant who calls no expert in that specialty is unlikely to recast the resulting findings as speculation.

August 8, 2026

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.

June 19, 2026

Bradley v Wang: A Misplaced Injection, Usual Practice Evidence, and the Mitigation Burden

Ibrahimova v Cavanagh: The Court of Appeal Upholds a Causation Finding Built on Inference

Leduc v Dufour: Contingency Fee Approval, Vulnerable Clients, and the Consumer Protection Framework

Gumbley v Vasiliou: Severe Asthma, Delayed Intubation, and a Counterfactual That Worked

Shaw Estate v Handler: The Court of Appeal Upholds Liability for a Failure to Recall After Critical Imaging

McKee v Shahid: Duty of Care to Non-Patient Family Members in Psychiatric Negligence

Hasan v Trillium: When the Defendant’s Negligence Creates the Evidentiary Gap

Hemmings v Peng: When the Anaesthetic, Not AFE, Caused the Catastrophe

Rogerson v Grey Bruce: Mandatory Reporting and the Causation Chain

Denman v Radovanovic: Cumulative Risks and the Treatment Team’s Duty to Inform

Henry v Zaitlen: A Jury Verdict for Delayed Diagnosis of a Spinal Cord Fistula

Concerned about medical negligence?
Talk to Paul directly.

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Browse related areas

Concerned about medical negligence? Talk to Paul directly.

Concerned about medical negligence?
Talk to Paul directly.