Dr. Dan Farine

The appellant obstetrician appealed a jury's finding of negligence and causation in a birth injury case, arguing the jury misapplied the "but for" test and that the verdict was unreasonable due to lack of evidence on timely delivery.

The appellant also claimed the trial judge improperly questioned witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the jury's application of the "but for" test, finding the verdict reasonable based on expert evidence, and concluding the trial judge's questions were proper clarifications within established judicial protocol.

Following an obstetrical malpractice trial where the jury found the defendant obstetrician 32% liable for the infant plaintiff's severe cerebral palsy, the defendant brought a motion under Rule 52.08 to dismiss the action or order a retrial.

The defendant argued the jury gave conflicting answers on causation and that there was no evidence to support their findings on the standard of care and delay in delivery.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the jury's use of the word 'contributed' did not conflict with the 'but for' causation test, and that there was ample expert evidence supporting the jury's conclusion that the defendant's failure to promptly prepare for an emergency c-section caused the infant's brain damage.

Judgment was ordered to be entered in accordance with the jury's verdict.

The Plaintiffs in a medical negligence action moved for leave to call four expert witnesses at trial, arguing that section 12 of the Ontario Evidence Act allowed for three experts per issue.

The court rejected this interpretation, holding that leave is required for more than three experts on all issues combined.

The motion for leave was denied, restricting the Plaintiffs to a total of three expert witnesses, citing factors such as the Defendant's objection, sufficiency of three experts for the core issues (standard of care and causation), the Defendant also calling three experts, lack of custom for more than three liability experts in medical malpractice, potential prejudice, and substantial duplication among the proposed experts.

In a medical negligence trial arising from a compromised birth, the plaintiffs alleged that labour and delivery nurses failed to meet obstetrical monitoring standards before a severe bradycardic event.

The court found that active labour had begun by at least 18:00, requiring half-hourly auscultation, and held the nursing care fell below the standard by failing to monitor appropriately, verify concerning findings, and escalate monitoring.

On causation, the court preferred expert evidence that a prolonged partial hypoxic-ischemic process likely developed before 21:00 and would probably have been detected with proper surveillance.

The court concluded earlier intervention would likely have prevented or substantially reduced the neurological injury.

The hospital was found liable, with damages previously admitted subject to approval.