Standard of Review

Standard of review describes the degree of deference an appellate or reviewing court gives to the decision under challenge. In civil appeals, including medical malpractice appeals, the framework comes from Housen v Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 SCR 235: questions of law are reviewed for correctness, while findings of fact and inferences of fact, including a trial judge’s findings on standard of care and causation, are reviewed only for palpable and overriding error.

This allocation matters enormously on appeal. Because the central findings in a medical malpractice trial are largely factual and depend on the trial judge’s assessment of competing expert evidence, they attract significant deference and are difficult to overturn. On judicial review of a regulatory or discipline decision, a different framework applies, with reasonableness as the presumptive standard following Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65.

Posts tagged Standard of Review analyze how Ontario appellate courts and reviewing courts have applied the governing standards in medical malpractice and discipline matters.