3 total
The court found two emergency physicians liable for medical negligence for failing to inquire about saddle anaesthesia, leading to a delayed diagnosis of cauda equina syndrome.
The plaintiff, Zorida Chrysostom, brought a medical negligence action against the defendant physicians and health system, alleging failure to diagnose cauda equina syndrome during her emergency department visit.
The court found that two defendant physicians, Dr. Mann and Dr. Kempenaar, fell below the standard of care by failing to adequately inquire about and document saddle anaesthesia, a cardinal symptom of cauda equina syndrome.
The court also concluded, on a balance of probabilities, that the plaintiff did suffer from cauda equina syndrome at the time of the initial visit, which would have necessitated earlier emergency surgery and improved her outcome.
Damages were agreed upon, and the judgment focused on liability.
Mental injury recovery does not require a recognized psychiatric diagnosis.
The Court held that negligence claims for mental injury do not require proof of a recognized psychiatric illness or expert diagnosis as a legal precondition.
A claimant must still prove serious and prolonged disturbance beyond ordinary distress under general negligence principles, including duty, breach, causation, and remoteness.
On the record, the trial judge’s factual findings of compensable mental injury based on lay evidence were entitled to deference.
The Court allowed the appeal, restored the trial award, and declined to remand issues of indivisibility and quantum.
Vital Statistics Act provisions allowing mothers to arbitrarily unacknowledge fathers on birth registrations violate Charter equality rights.
The appellant father challenged provisions of the British Columbia Vital Statistics Act that allowed a mother to arbitrarily 'unacknowledge' a father on a birth registration, thereby excluding his particulars and preventing him from participating in choosing the child's surname.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provisions violated section 15(1) of the Charter by discriminating on the basis of sex, as they exposed fathers to arbitrary exclusion without recourse.
The Court found the infringement was not justified under section 1, as the legislation did not minimally impair fathers' rights.
The provisions were declared unconstitutional, with the declaration suspended for 12 months.