The Cross-Province tag collects case comments on decisions from outside Ontario that bear on Ontario medical malpractice litigation. Although Ontario is governed by its own Rules of Civil Procedure and its own appellate decisions, courts in this province routinely consider authority from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the Atlantic provinces, and the federal level, particularly on questions of standard of care, causation, and the admissibility of expert evidence.
Decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada are binding on Ontario courts. Decisions of other provincial appellate courts are persuasive only, but Ontario judges often look to them when no Ontario decision is on point or when the foreign court has analyzed an issue more thoroughly. The Supreme Court of British Columbia’s medical malpractice docket, in particular, generates a steady stream of decisions on standard of care and causation that Ontario counsel watch closely.
Posts tagged Cross-Province analyze decisions from other Canadian jurisdictions for what they signal about how Ontario courts may approach the same issue. Each post identifies the source jurisdiction and notes the binding-versus-persuasive distinction.
A surgeon was found liable for failing to disclose laparoscopic hernia repair as an alternative, even though the open repair he performed met the standard of care.
Free, confidential consultations. Paul reviews every potential case personally and tells you honestly whether it merits investigation.