Teaching Medical Malpractice at Windsor Law
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.
February 6, 2023
Articles Tagged
Expert Evidence
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.
Tales from the Trenches: Two Medical Malpractice Trials in 2022
Reflections on two medical malpractice trials in post-COVID Ontario, one jury and one judge-alone. From Gluckstein’s 2022 Risky Business CLE.
November 29, 2022
Literature, Medicine and the Law at a Medical Malpractice Trial
Where literature, medicine, and the law intersect at a medical malpractice trial in Ontario. From a 2022 OTLA medical malpractice conference panel.
September 23, 2022
Medical Malpractice Practice in Ontario: A Justice in Pieces Guest Conversation
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.
November 24, 2021
Screening New Medical Malpractice Cases: When to Take Them and When to Pass
Why screening medical malpractice cases matters at intake, and what to recommend patients when civil litigation is not economical. From a 2021 CLE panel.
September 15, 2021
Hacopian-Armen Estate v Mahmoud: An Appeal on Causation and the “Same Class or Kind” Foreseeability Analysis
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.
July 29, 2021
Getting Past the Gatekeeper: Expert Evidence at Trial
How Ontario judges gatekeep expert opinion evidence, and what plaintiff counsel can do to clear that bar. From a 2021 MLST panel.
May 19, 2021
Three Trials on the Inside Medical Malpractice Podcast with Chris Rokosh
Three episodes on the Inside Medical Malpractice podcast with Chris Rokosh. Paul on the trials of Hacopian, O’Neill-Renouf, and Woods v Jackiewicz.
June 15, 2020
Self-Represented Litigants in Girao v Cunningham: Commentary in Law Times
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.
May 11, 2020
A Road Map for Medical Malpractice Cases
Expert evidence, defence resourcing, and high-risk ER scenarios shape Ontario medical malpractice cases. From OTLA’s 2020 medical malpractice conference.
February 29, 2020
O’Neill-Renouf v Ibrahim: An Obturator Nerve Injury, a Competing Edema Theory, and a Trial Victory
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.
July 19, 2019
Finding the Right Expert in a Medical Malpractice Case
Why expert selection drives outcomes in Ontario medical malpractice cases. Paul Cahill on finding the right expert from an OTLA webinar.
October 23, 2018
Have a Case Like This?
Concerned about medical negligence?
Talk to Paul directly.
Free, confidential consultations. Paul reviews every potential case personally and tells you honestly whether it merits investigation.