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.
A 17-day birth injury trial. Battery, informed consent, five negligence allegations, and causation all addressed and rejected. A multi-ground defence dismissal.
The Court of Appeal affirmed plaintiff causation in a stroke malpractice case, holding that defendants cannot rely on evidentiary gaps their own negligence created.
A settlement on behalf of a woman in her 60s whose family physician dismissed three years of GI symptoms despite a known family history of colon cancer.
The Court of Appeal affirmed a $12 million plaintiff verdict for catastrophic maternal brain injury, rejecting the defence theory of amniotic fluid embolism.
A failed obstetric epidural with a fractured needle did not prove substandard technique. The British Columbia court rejected outcome-based reasoning on both grounds.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of a medical negligence claim alleging failure to report child protection concerns. The causation chain failed at multiple links.
How to cross-examine the defence expert and advance your case theory. From the 2024 OBA Anatomy of a Trial continuing professional development program.
A delayed Lyme disease claim against two Ontario physicians dismissed on multiple grounds, including the most fundamental: the plaintiff failed to prove he had Lyme disease.
Composite card pairing the Medico-Legal Society of Toronto crest with the title Causation in Systemic Medical Negligence, on Paul Cahill’s navy brand panel.
A young man developed paraplegia from an undiagnosed spinal dural fistula his neurologist failed to investigate. A jury awarded $1.5M; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
An Ontario orthopaedic surgeon was found liable after removing clavicle hardware six weeks early without revisiting his own documented treatment plan.
A widow’s appeal in a death after delayed embolization for a lingual artery pseudoaneurysm. The BC Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal on the standard of care.
Free, confidential consultations. Paul reviews every potential case personally and tells you honestly whether it merits investigation.