Informed consent is a separate ground of liability in Ontario medical malpractice law, distinct from negligent treatment. A physician who performs a procedure without obtaining the patient’s consent at all may be liable in battery. A physician who obtains consent but fails to disclose the material risks and alternatives to a proposed treatment may be liable in negligence for any resulting harm.
The leading Canadian authority is Reibl v Hughes, [1980] 2 SCR 880, which established a modified objective test for causation in informed consent cases: would a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s particular circumstances have refused the treatment had the risks been properly disclosed? Hopp v Lepp, [1980] 2 SCR 192, set out the scope of the physician’s disclosure obligation.
Informed consent cases turn on the materiality of the undisclosed risk, the quality of the consent discussion, the adequacy of the documentation, and the credibility of the patient’s evidence about what they would have done with full information.
Posts tagged Informed Consent analyze how Ontario courts have applied the Reibl framework in surgical, obstetrical, and procedural fact patterns, including cases on the scope of disclosure and on the modified objective test for causation.
A BC trial judge found an obstetrician 85% liable and obstetrical nurses 15% liable for skull fractures and brain damage caused during a difficult caesarean section.
A patient’s guide to surgical malpractice in Ontario. The three phases of care, the evidentiary challenges, and what it takes to prove a viable claim.
Three physicians on a multi-disciplinary team failed to obtain informed consent for an elective AVM procedure. The Court of Appeal upheld an $8.5M judgment.
Most bad outcomes in medicine are not malpractice. After two decades of these cases in Ontario, here are the signs worth taking seriously.
Free, confidential consultations. Paul reviews every potential case personally and tells you honestly whether it merits investigation.