Representing Victims of Medical Malpractice Across Ontario

intake@paulcahill.ca (416) 643-3845
(416) 643-3845 Free Consultation
Articles Tagged

Standard of Care

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.

98 articles View all topics →
Navy title card reading "Brown v Meaney: The limits of clinical judgment, affirmed on appeal" from paulcahill.ca, a Paul Cahill case comment.

Brown v Meaney: Clinical Judgment, Informed Consent, and Commonsense Causation on Appeal

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.

Read More »
June 19, 2026
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 »
May 13, 2026
Other Topics

Browse related areas

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.

Book a Consultation (416) 643-3845