
Bad Doctor or Bad Genes? Genetic Defences in Medical Malpractice
When can a defendant compel genetic testing in a medical malpractice claim? An analysis of Klinck v Dorsay and Preece v Nicholson from a 2023 OTLA paper.
Representing Victims of Medical Malpractice Across Ontario
Damages is the third element of a medical malpractice claim, after standard of care and causation. Once a plaintiff has proven that the defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of care and that the breach caused the injury, the court must quantify the loss in monetary terms. In Ontario medical malpractice cases, damages typically fall into several heads: general (or non-pecuniary) damages for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life; future care costs; past and future loss of income or earning capacity; out-of-pocket expenses; and family-member claims under section 61 of the Family Law Act.
Non-pecuniary damages in Canada are capped at approximately three hundred and fifty thousand dollars (in 1978 dollars, indexed to inflation), following the Supreme Court of Canada’s trilogy of decisions in Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd, [1978] 2 SCR 229, Thornton v School District No 57 (Prince George), [1978] 2 SCR 267, and Arnold v Teno, [1978] 2 SCR 287. The cap currently runs to roughly four hundred thousand dollars in present-day dollars. Pecuniary damages are not capped and can run into the millions in catastrophic injury cases.
The quantification of future-care costs and loss of earning capacity is typically the most heavily contested aspect of damages and requires actuarial and medical expert evidence.
Posts tagged Damages analyze Ontario decisions on the assessment of compensation in medical malpractice claims.

When can a defendant compel genetic testing in a medical malpractice claim? An analysis of Klinck v Dorsay and Preece v Nicholson from a 2023 OTLA paper.

A settlement on behalf of the family of a 39-year-old mother of two whose breast cancer was diagnosed too late after a missed opportunity to investigate.

Yes, but the harder question is whether your situation supports a viable claim. An honest threshold assessment for Ontario patients considering legal action.

A medication error caused real distress but no compensable mental injury. The Court of Appeal applied the Saadati threshold and dismissed the claim.

The essential evidence required to prove a medical malpractice claim in Ontario. From a 2023 guest lecture at the University of Windsor Faculty of Law.

A settlement involving a 65-year-old man whose ankle fracture went 40 days without orthopedic follow-up, leading to joint infection and below-knee amputation.

Why screening medical malpractice cases matters at intake, and what to recommend patients when civil litigation is not economical. From a 2021 CLE panel.

Paul Cahill won a trial verdict in Hacopian-Armen v Mahmoud where Justice Brown found a gynecologist negligently failed to biopsy and missed a curable cancer.

Paul Cahill won a trial verdict in O’Neill-Renouf v Ibrahim where Justice Baltman found a urologist negligently injured the obturator nerve during a TVT procedure.

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.

Paul Cahill settled a laboratory negligence claim where a failure to properly test tuberculosis susceptibilities led to vertebral collapse and spinal surgery.

Paul Cahill settled a surgical negligence claim where ankle fracture surgery proceeded before the patient’s anticoagulation was properly reversed.
Free, confidential consultations. Paul reviews every potential case personally and tells you honestly whether it merits investigation.