Representing Victims of Medical Malpractice Across Ontario

Articles Tagged

Medical Negligence

Medical negligence is the legal cause of action that underpins most medical malpractice claims in Ontario. To establish liability in medical negligence, a plaintiff must prove three elements: that the defendant owed a duty of care to the patient, that the defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of care a reasonable practitioner in the same circumstances would have met, and that the breach caused or materially contributed to the plaintiff’s injury. The framework is the same general negligence framework applied to other tort cases, but its application in the medical context is shaped by the requirement of expert evidence at every step.

Medical negligence is distinct from related but separate theories of liability that can arise on the same facts: battery, where a procedure is performed without any consent at all; failure of informed consent in negligence, where consent was given but the disclosure was inadequate; vicarious liability, where one party is responsible for the conduct of another; and direct institutional liability, where the hospital itself is sued for its systems and processes.

Posts tagged Medical Negligence analyze Ontario decisions on the core negligence framework: duty, breach, and causation, in cases against physicians, nurses, hospitals, and other regulated health professionals.

47 articles View all topics →
Navy title card reading Common Misunderstandings About Medical Malpractice, with the subhead What patients in Ontario often get wrong, from paulcahill.ca.

Common Misunderstandings About Medical Malpractice in Ontario

Some of the most common beliefs about medical malpractice in Ontario are simply wrong, and they cut both ways: pushing some people toward hopeless claims and others away from good ones. Here are the misunderstandings I see most often, set against how the law actually works, from what counts as negligence to limitation periods, College complaints, causation, and the cap on damages.

Read More »
Navy title card reading "Clarey v Gillis, A devastating outcome that was not negligence" from paulcahill.ca

Clarey v Gillis: A Near-Fatal Surgical Complication and No Breach of the Standard of Care

Norman Clarey nearly died after a bowel resection led to a failed anastomosis and a permanent stoma. A Prince Edward Island court nonetheless dismissed his negligence, breach of contract, and informed consent claims, finding Dr. Gillis met the standard of care throughout and that causation was not proven. As an out-of-province decision it is persuasive but not binding in Ontario, though it applies largely Ontario and Supreme Court of Canada authority.

Read More »
Navy title card reading "Ewashko v Hugo, Case Comment" with the line "A delayed urgent C-section and a preventable birth injury," from paulcahill.ca

Ewashko v Hugo: A Delayed C-Section and a Preventable Birth Injury

An Alberta court found that an urgent C-section taking 101 minutes fell below the standard of care, that two physicians’ combined 50 minutes of unnecessary delay was not a defensible judgment call, and that the delay caused a child’s cerebral palsy. A look at the timeliness standard, the causation reasoning, and why this Alberta decision is persuasive, not binding, in Ontario.

Read More »
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.