Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Navy title card reading "Micallef v Distasio: Laser burns, ordinary negligence, and no expert report" from paulcahill.ca. Case comment on Micallef v Distasio, 2026 CanLII 87468 (ON SCSM), a $50,000 Small Claims Court award for laser hair removal burns proven without expert standard-of-care evidence. By Paul Cahill, LSO Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation.

Micallef v Distasio: Laser Burns, Ordinary Negligence, and a $50,000 Small Claims Judgment

A self-represented plaintiff recovered the full $50,000 Small Claims Court limit for burns and permanent pigmentation loss from a laser hair removal treatment, without an expert report on the standard of care. The Court reached that result by applying Ayana v Skin Klinic, the 2009 decision establishing that laser hair removal is not a medical procedure in Ontario. The defence bet that no plaintiff expert meant no case, and lost.

August 26, 2026

Navy title card reading "Ramzanali v Sunnybrook: misnomer refused, the limitation defence left for trial" from paulcahill.ca, a case comment on 2026 ONSC 4198.

Ramzanali v Sunnybrook: Eighty Doe Defendants and the Limits of Misnomer

A patient treated at Sunnybrook over three years, a claim issued on the last day of the Trustee Act limitation period, and eighty Doe defendants. Justice Merritt refused to treat the case as misnomer, holding that the litigation finger pointed at everyone and therefore at no one. The three physicians were added anyway, with the limitation defence preserved for trial.

August 18, 2026

Navy title card reading "Pelrine v Chung: Late expert reports and the interests of justice" from paulcahill.ca.

Pelrine v Chung: Late Expert Reports, Rule 53.08, and the Interests of Justice

Rule 53.08 was tightened in 2022 to stop the routine late service of expert reports. In Pelrine v Chung, the Divisional Court held that the correction can be overdone, and that the interests of justice apply throughout the rule rather than only at its second stage. Two excluded defence reports were let in, thirteen months before a jury trial.

August 1, 2026

Case comment on J.C. v Jugenburg, 2026 ONSC 3061, on clinic surveillance, intrusion upon seclusion, and aggregate privacy damages in a patient class action. By Paul Cahill, LSO Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation.

J.C. v Jugenburg: Undisclosed Patient Surveillance and the Tort of Intrusion upon Seclusion

A cosmetic surgery clinic recorded patients in consultation rooms and the operating room without telling them. In J.C. v Jugenburg, 2026 ONSC 3061, the court awarded $21.5 million in aggregate damages and $1 million in punitive damages, and clarified how intrusion upon seclusion applies inside the doctor-patient relationship.

June 5, 2026

Case comment on Forget v Gibb, 2026 ONSC 626, on standard of care, expert evidence, and causation in a surgical negligence claim. By Paul Cahill, LSO Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation.

Forget v Gibb: A Surgical Complication, a Failed Repair, and No Breach of the Standard of Care

In Forget v Gibb, 2026 ONSC 626, the Ontario court dismissed a surgical negligence claim and delivered a sharp critique of the plaintiff’s expert.

April 14, 2026

Case comment on The Estate of Catherine Cecilia Henders v Lakeridge Health Oshawa, 2026 ONSC 701 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice), procedural decision granting motion to amend statement of claim to name specific physicians and home-care contractor as defendants in place of John Doe placeholders after expiry of the Trustee Act limitation period in a wrongful death case involving Stage 4 pressure ulcers in a vulnerable elderly patient. By Paul Cahill, LSO Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation.

Estate of Henders v Lakeridge Health Oshawa: Misnomer and the Trustee Act Limitation Framework

Ontario Superior Court permits late naming of physicians and home-care contractor in pressure ulcer death case, applying the misnomer doctrine to John Doe pleadings.

February 9, 2026

Case comment on Gumbley v Vasiliou, 2024 ONSC 4858, affirmed at 2025 ONCA 851. By Paul Cahill, LSO Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation.

Gumbley v Vasiliou: Severe Asthma, Delayed Intubation, and a Counterfactual That Worked

An Ontario internist found negligent for delayed intubation and failure to call an intensivist when a young mother’s severe asthma attack turned catastrophic.

January 12, 2026

Case comment on Ibrahimova v Cavanagh, 2025 ONSC 4808 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice), plaintiff trial win for 17-week pregnant patient with catastrophic outcome (below-knee amputation, partial foot amputation, kidney transplant, stroke, seizures) after emergency physician failed to refer her to obstetrician on documented possible preterm premature rupture of membranes. By Paul Cahill, LSO Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation.

Ibrahimova v Cavanagh: Missed pPROM, the Novel Presentation Referral Framework, and Catastrophic Outcomes

Ontario court finds emergency physician negligent for failing to refer 17-week pregnant patient with pPROM to obstetrician, leading to septic shock and amputations.

October 3, 2025

Case comment on Bradley v Wang, 2025 ONSC 2267 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice), plaintiff trial win for registered nurse with chronic shoulder injury (SIRVA) following improper tetanus vaccine administration by first-year family medicine resident; over $1,000,000 in damages awarded principally for lost income and pension consequences over the balance of her nursing career. By Paul Cahill, LSO Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation.

Bradley v Wang: SIRVA, Injection Landmarking, and the Resident Physician Standard of Care

Ontario court awards over $1 million to nurse with chronic shoulder injury from improper tetanus injection by family medicine resident at SOC trial.

July 24, 2025

Case comment on Fedoriuk v Howard, 2025 ONSC 2534 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice), mid-trial procedural ruling adopting but-for phrasing for jury causation questions and declining to require jurors to provide written reasons in a delayed diagnosis cerebral aneurysm case against emergency department triage nurses. By Paul Cahill, LSO Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation.

Fedoriuk v Howard: But-For Phrasing and the Jury Particulars Question in Delayed Diagnosis

Ontario mid-trial ruling adopts but-for phrasing for jury causation questions in delayed diagnosis aneurysm case but declines to require jurors to give reasons.

June 26, 2025

$Case comment on O'Brien v Lochab, 2025 ONSC 2046 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice), defendant trial win for orthopaedic surgeon in hip replacement subsidence case; court found subsidence was attributable to recognized 5 percent osteointegration failure rate rather than to negligence, and that the plaintiff's expert evidence rested on a rejected factual premise about the extent of the original fracture. By Paul Cahill, LSO Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation.$

O’Brien v Lochab: Recognized Complications, Factual Disputes, and the Limits of Negligence

Ontario court dismisses orthopaedic malpractice claim after finding hip replacement subsidence was osteointegration failure, a recognized complication, not negligence.

June 11, 2025

Case comment on Ibrahimova v Cavanagh, 2025 ONSC 1152 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice), motion decision denying defendant physicians' request for production of in-home security camera recordings in a catastrophic injury malpractice action arising from missed previable PROM and septic pregnancy loss. On the privacy versus relevance framework in civil discovery and the Stewart v Kempster line. By Paul Cahill, LSO Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation.

Ibrahimova v Cavanagh: In-Home Recordings, Privacy, and the Limits of Defence Discovery

Ontario court denies defendant doctors’ motion for in-home security camera recordings in catastrophic injury malpractice action. Privacy prevails over relevance.

April 17, 2025

Browse related areas

Concerned about medical negligence? Talk to Paul directly.

Concerned about medical negligence?
Talk to Paul directly.