Standard of care is the legal benchmark for the conduct expected of physicians, nurses, and other regulated health professionals in Ontario. It is the first of the three elements a plaintiff must prove in a medical malpractice claim, and it is almost always proven or defended through the evidence of qualified medical experts.
Posts tagged Standard of Care analyze how Ontario courts have applied the test in specific cases, how expert evidence is used to define what a reasonable practitioner would have done in the circumstances, and where the standard is contested between specialties. The library covers obstetrical, emergency, surgical, anesthetic, and primary care decisions, along with appellate rulings that shape how trial courts approach the question.
For patients considering a claim, these case comments offer a sense of what Ontario courts have treated as a departure from the standard of care and what they have not.
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.
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.
A new report finds one in 10 admitted patients now spend more than 48 hours waiting in the emergency department, and roughly 16,000 died while waiting for care last year. But a broken system is not the same as a winnable malpractice claim. Here is where an ER delay can cross into negligence in Ontario, and where it cannot.
The Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal in Brown v Meaney, upholding findings that two pediatric neurologists breached the standard of care and the duty to obtain informed consent when they abandoned a pyridoxine trial in an infant with a rare epilepsy. The decision affirms that a defensible first impression does not excuse the failure to revisit it, and that causation need not be proven with scientific precision.
Doctors warn against an overwhelming surge of online menopause misinformation. The legal framework where patient harm crosses into medical malpractice in Ontario.
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.
How surgical negligence claims succeed or fail. A 2026 OTLA Spring Conference paper on never events and recognized complication cases.
Yes, you can sue for medical malpractice in Ontario. The harder question is whether you should. After two decades of these cases, the candid advice for many prospective clients is to think very carefully before going forward, and in some cases, not to go forward at all.
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.
Hamilton Spectator coverage of the Hanans family’s $2.5 million lawsuit against Hamilton Health Sciences over the 2024 death of a four-year-old following routine pediatric tonsil surgery.
A settlement on behalf of the family of a man admitted with a heart attack who died overnight after his telemetry alarms went unanswered by hospital staff.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismisses a prophylactic laparoscopic hysterectomy bowel injury claim where the plaintiff led no expert evidence. Informed consent, the modified objective test, and the indispensability of expert evidence.
Free, confidential consultations. Paul reviews every potential case personally and tells you honestly whether it merits investigation.