Elder C. Marques

The plaintiff underwent cataract surgery performed by the defendant ophthalmologist.

Prior to surgery, the defendant measured the plaintiff's eyes using an older A-scan method, which produced highly variable results.

The defendant failed to inform the plaintiff of these variable results and the increased risk of not achieving her expected visual outcome, nor did he recommend the more accurate IOL Master method at that time.

The surgery resulted in significant under-correction (hyperopia).

To correct this, the plaintiff underwent a piggyback lens surgery, which subsequently caused severe dysphotopsia.

The court found the defendant breached the standard of care regarding informed consent by failing to disclose the material risks associated with the variable A-scan results.

The court established causation and awarded damages for pain and suffering, past income loss, future care costs, and a Family Law Act claim for the plaintiff's son.

The plaintiff was injured in a skiing accident and subsequently underwent spinal surgery performed by the defendant.

During the surgery, an instrument slipped, causing further nerve damage.

The defendant informed the plaintiff of the surgical accident the following day.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the ski resort but did not sue the defendant until nearly five years later, after receiving an expert report from the ski resort's counsel suggesting the defendant breached the standard of care.

The defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that the action was statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence in investigating the surgical accident, and the claim was discoverable well before the receipt of the expert report.

The defendants appealed a Master's order dismissing their motion to sever the claims of two plaintiffs who alleged sexual misconduct against their deceased family physician.

The Master had dismissed the motion primarily because it was brought at a late stage in the litigation, after discoveries were completed and the action was set down for trial.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master made no error of law and reasonably exercised her discretion in concluding that the conduct of the trial, including rulings on the admissibility of similar fact evidence, should be left to the trial judge.