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.
Paul as guest on Justice in Pieces, the legal education YouTube series with John-Paul Rodrigues. On the realities of plaintiff-side medical malpractice practice.
Why screening medical malpractice cases matters at intake, and what to recommend patients when civil litigation is not economical. From a 2021 CLE panel.
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld Paul Cahill’s trial verdict in Hacopian-Armen Estate v Mahmoud, clarifying the foreseeability test in delayed cancer cases.
How Ontario judges gatekeep expert opinion evidence, and what plaintiff counsel can do to clear that bar. From a 2021 MLST panel.
Three episodes on the Inside Medical Malpractice podcast with Chris Rokosh. Paul on the trials of Hacopian, O’Neill-Renouf, and Woods v Jackiewicz.
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.
Expert evidence, defence resourcing, and high-risk ER scenarios shape Ontario medical malpractice cases. From OTLA’s 2020 medical malpractice conference.
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.
Why expert selection drives outcomes in Ontario medical malpractice cases. Paul Cahill on finding the right expert from an OTLA webinar.
The role of legal nurse consultants in medical malpractice cases, from records review to expert identification. From a 2015 Connect MLX seminar.
Paul Cahill’s trial victory in Ayana v Skin Klinic, 2009, established the standard of care for laser hair removal performed in an Ontario dermatology clinic.
Free, confidential consultations. Paul reviews every potential case personally and tells you honestly whether it merits investigation.