Daniela M. Pacheco

This is an appeal from a medical malpractice judgment where the trial judge found the appellant physician negligent in treating a stroke victim, leading to permanent injuries.

The core issue on appeal was causation: whether the trial judge erred in finding that the physician's negligence caused the injuries, specifically by not requiring the plaintiff to establish precisely which treatment option would have prevented the unfavourable outcome.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's robust and pragmatic application of the "but for" causation test, particularly in the context of an evidentiary gap created by the defendant's negligence.

This decision addresses a request by the respondent (defendant in the original action) to limit the scope of a new trial on liability and damages, which had been ordered by the Court of Appeal in a prior decision.

The court dismissed the request, emphasizing that the evidence and issues were complex, interrelated, and interdependent.

Limiting the trial to specific issues would risk artificial credibility assessments and unreliable fact-finding.

The appellants, triplets born with serious disabilities, appealed the dismissal of their negligence claim against a physician who prescribed a fertility drug to their mother pre-conception.

They alleged the physician failed to provide informed consent and prescribed a contraindicated medication.

The Court of Appeal, in a majority decision, dismissed the appeal, affirming that a physician does not owe a duty of care to a future child for alleged negligence occurring pre-conception, citing policy concerns regarding conflicting duties and women's autonomy.

The dissenting judge argued that the allegation of a contraindicated drug could distinguish the case and warrant a full trial to determine if a novel duty of care exists.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against a urologist, alleging negligent performance of a trans-urethral resection of the prostate (TURP) that resulted in total and continuous urinary incontinence.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the urologist breached the standard of care or that the alleged breach caused the incontinence.

The court concluded that the incontinence was a known complication, likely attributable to pre-existing conditions of an overactive bladder and a weakened external sphincter, rather than surgical negligence.

The Plaintiffs' medical negligence action against the Defendants was dismissed after a jury found breaches of standard of care but no causation.

The Defendants, as successful parties, sought costs.

The court, exercising its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, rejected the Plaintiffs' arguments for no costs based on "divided success," access to justice concerns, or the Canadian Medical Protective Association covering the physicians' costs.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis to the Defendant Physicians and the Defendant Hospital, fixing specific amounts.

While the main Plaintiff, Jordan Sacks, was held liable for the bulk of the costs, the Family Law Act claimants (Jordan's wife and parents) were held liable for apportioned, rather than joint and several, amounts to ensure fairness given the derivative nature and comparatively modest value of their claims.

In a jury trial for medical negligence arising from hospital treatment, the parties disputed the proper wording of causation questions to be put to the jury and whether the jury should provide particulars explaining any finding of causation.

The plaintiffs argued the jury should be asked whether the defendants' breach 'caused or contributed to' the injury, relying on principles recognizing multiple causes in negligence.

The defendants argued the jury must be instructed using the Supreme Court of Canada’s 'but for' causation test articulated in Clements.

The court held the jury questions should follow the 'but for' formulation, finding the 'cause or contribute' wording risked confusion.

The court also ruled that if causation were found, the jury should be required to provide particulars of its reasoning due to the complexity of the medical evidence and multiple defendants.

In a medical negligence action arising from alleged delayed diagnosis of a postoperative complication leading to catastrophic injuries, the defendant physicians brought a motion seeking permission for one defendant physician to testify at trial by videoconference.

The physician was on maternity leave in another province and argued that attending in person would cause expense and inconvenience.

The court considered Rule 1.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the efficiency principles articulated in Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The court held that the request was inappropriate because the proposed witness was a party defendant whose credibility and conduct were in issue, and the plaintiff had a fundamental right to have the parties attend court for trial.

The inconvenience to the defendant did not constitute sufficient hardship to override due process considerations.