Representing victims of medical malpractice across Ontario
When something goes wrong in medical care, many patients and families expect an explanation—or even an acknowledgment of error. Instead, they often encounter denials, silence, or defensive responses from doctors and hospitals.
This can feel deeply frustrating or unfair, particularly when the outcome involves serious injury or death.
This page explains why doctors and hospitals in Ontario often deny fault, even when mistakes may have occurred, and how those denials fit into the legal and medical malpractice process.
It is important to understand that denial of fault is not necessarily a personal statement about a patient or family, and it is not always a sign of indifference.
In Ontario, doctors and hospitals operate within a system where:
admissions of fault can have legal consequences,
malpractice claims are defended aggressively, and
responsibility is assessed through expert evidence and courts—not informal explanations.
As a result, healthcare providers are often advised not to admit error, even when outcomes are tragic.
Most physicians in Ontario are defended by malpractice insurers, most commonly the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA).
These insurers:
control the legal defence,
appoint lawyers,
instruct doctors on communications, and
generally take the position that fault should not be admitted unless legally required.
From an insurer’s perspective, denying liability is the default position until a court determines otherwise.
One of the most common reasons fault is denied is that medicine involves judgment, not clear right-and-wrong answers.
Doctors and hospitals often argue that:
symptoms were vague or non-specific,
multiple reasonable diagnostic or treatment options existed,
decisions were reasonable based on information available at the time,
complications were known risks, not errors.
Courts evaluate care based on what was reasonable at the time, not what appears obvious in hindsight.
Even where a mistake may have occurred, doctors and hospitals frequently deny fault by disputing causation.
They may argue that:
the outcome would have been the same even with different care,
the disease or condition was already advanced,
the harm was unavoidable,
other medical or patient-related factors caused the injury.
In Ontario, it is not enough to show that care could have been better. It must be shown that the error made a meaningful difference to the outcome.
amilies often describe experiences involving:
overcrowded emergency departments,
long wait times,
staffing shortages,
poor communication,
rushed care.
While these problems are real and serious, hospitals and doctors often deny fault by arguing that:
the care still met minimum legal standards,
delays were unavoidable within the system,
systemic strain does not equal individual negligence.
Legal liability focuses on specific breaches of standard of care, not general dissatisfaction with the healthcare system.
Doctors are often reluctant to admit fault because admissions can affect:
malpractice litigation,
professional discipline,
insurance coverage,
reputation and career.
As a result, even compassionate providers may be advised to:
limit discussions,
avoid speculation,
refer concerns to legal counsel or insurers.
This can feel cold to families, but it reflects the legal realities of malpractice claims.
A denial of fault does not mean that:
negligence did not occur,
a malpractice claim is weak,
a lawsuit cannot succeed.
In many cases, fault is only established after:
full medical record review,
independent expert opinions,
discoveries and examinations,
and sometimes trial.
It is common for fault to be denied initially, even in cases that later resolve in favour of the patient.
Many patients expect answers immediately. In reality:
hospitals conduct internal reviews that are not shared,
insurers restrict communications,
legal positions are taken early and maintained consistently.
This means that explanations may come years later, if at all.
An experienced medical malpractice lawyer understands that denials are part of the process.
Case evaluation focuses on:
medical records, not explanations,
expert evidence, not opinions,
legal standards, not apologies.
The key question is not whether fault is denied, but whether independent evidence supports a claim.
Even where fault is denied, some cases still cannot proceed because:
the standard of care was met,
causation cannot be proven,
expert support is lacking,
damages do not justify litigation,
limitation periods have expired.
This is why careful case screening is essential.
If you are facing denial of fault, it may help to:
obtain complete medical records,
document timelines and concerns,
avoid relying solely on explanations from providers,
It is also often advisable to make formal complaints with hospitals and regulatory colleges. Legal evaluation is based on evidence, not assurances or denials.
Doctors and hospitals in Ontario often deny fault because of legal, medical, and systemic realities—not because harm did not occur.
Understanding this can help families set realistic expectations and focus on what truly matters: whether the evidence supports a viable medical malpractice claim.
If you have concerns about negligent medical care, a medical malpractice lawyer can assess whether a claim may proceed, regardless of whether fault has been denied.