The Supreme Court of British Columbia, despite its name, is the trial-level court of general jurisdiction in BC for civil matters. It is the rough equivalent of Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice. The Supreme Court of British Columbia has a particularly active medical malpractice docket, and its decisions are followed closely by Ontario counsel and Ontario courts even though they are not binding here. Some of the most frequently cited Canadian decisions on standard of care, causation, and expert evidence have originated in this court or have been refined on appeal from it.
British Columbia decisions are persuasive authority in Ontario, not binding authority. An Ontario judge is not required to follow a BCSC ruling, but in practice, where the BCSC has analyzed a question more thoroughly than any Ontario court, or where the question is novel, BCSC reasoning often informs the Ontario analysis. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia, by extension, is a frequent source of persuasive appellate guidance for Ontario practitioners.
Posts tagged Supreme Court of British Columbia analyze decisions from that court on medical malpractice issues, with attention to what the BCSC’s reasoning signals for the future direction of Ontario law on the same questions.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismisses a maxillomandibular advancement claim brought by a self-represented plaintiff. An American expert who could not identify the Royal College of Dentists of Canada, a seven-hour video log that contradicted the plaintiff’s trial evidence, and an adverse inference the court declined to draw.
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.
BC court dismisses ED malpractice claim involving missed subarachnoid hemorrhage where patient lacked thunderclap headache and the bleed had not yet occurred.
The BC Supreme Court dismisses a missed-appendicitis claim. Normal ultrasound, documented differential diagnosis, and the anchoring bias allegation rejected.
A failed obstetric epidural with a fractured needle did not prove substandard technique. The British Columbia court rejected outcome-based reasoning on both grounds.
A birth injury claim alleging failure to discuss antenatal steroids and resuscitation in a 25-week preterm risk situation was dismissed. The discussion was attempted; the patient declined to engage.
A defence motion to strike a jury notice was dismissed in a complex BC birth injury case involving 31 expert reports and 35 anticipated witnesses.
Free, confidential consultations. Paul reviews every potential case personally and tells you honestly whether it merits investigation.