Expert evidence is the engine of medical malpractice litigation. Because judges and juries are not expected to know what a reasonable physician, nurse, or other regulated health professional would have done in a given clinical situation, qualified experts are needed to define the standard of care, explain the mechanism of injury, and address causation. In most Ontario medical malpractice trials, expert evidence is the difference between success and failure.
Expert reports and testimony in the Ontario Superior Court are governed by Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which sets out service deadlines, content requirements, and the expert’s duty to the court. The admissibility framework was refined by the Supreme Court of Canada in White Burgess Langille Inman v Abbott and Haliburton Co, 2015 SCC 23, [2015] 2 SCR 182, which clarified the role of expert independence and impartiality at the threshold stage.
Posts tagged Expert Evidence analyze how Ontario courts have ruled on the qualifications of medical experts, the scope of permissible opinion, challenges to admissibility, and the weight given to competing expert opinions at trial.
A widow’s appeal in a death after delayed embolization for a lingual artery pseudoaneurysm. The BC Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal on the standard of care.
A claim alleging that psychiatrists failed to disclose dose increases during a course of ECT was dismissed mid-trial for absence of expert evidence. The BC Court of Appeal affirmed.
A self-represented plaintiff’s negligence and informed consent claims against an OBGYN were dismissed on summary judgment for lack of expert evidence.
Paul Cahill’s Winter 2023/2024 Litigator article on finding the right expert, navigating Westerhof and the Mohan/White Burgess framework, and surviving defence challenges to expert evidence at trial.
A 27-year-old woman died from a missed cerebellar stroke after an ER discharge. The malpractice claim was dismissed when the plaintiff’s expert evidence unravelled at trial.
Three 2023 decisions from Alberta, Ontario, and Newfoundland show why self-represented plaintiffs almost never succeed in medical malpractice litigation.
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.
September 2023 coverage in CP24 and the Brampton Guardian of the Thompson v Handler trial decision finding an ER physician negligent for the death of a 34-year-old mother.
A self-represented plaintiff’s Lyme disease delayed-diagnosis claim was dismissed at summary judgment after his sole expert witness was disqualified.
A negligent stroke discharge that failed at causation. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the action, despite an admitted breach of standard of care.
A Manitoba decision in which a physician was found negligent without expert evidence, illustrating the narrow common-sense exception under ter Neuzen v Korn.
A plaintiffs’ motion to pierce litigation privilege over expert communications fails despite real credibility concerns about a defendant doctor’s evidence.
Free, confidential consultations. Paul reviews every potential case personally and tells you honestly whether it merits investigation.