Dr. Farine

The appellant physician appealed a jury verdict finding him liable for negligent management of a twin pregnancy, which resulted in premature birth and brain damage to one of the twins.

The appellant argued the jury's verdict on causation was unreasonable due to a lack of evidence that the required treatment, amnioreduction, was available at the referral hospital in 1991.

The appellant also challenged the trial judge's jury instructions regarding adverse inferences, the characterization of expert evidence, and the failure to instruct on loss of chance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that there was an evidentiary basis for the jury's conclusion on causation and that the jury charge was fair, balanced, and legally correct.

The defendant obstetrician, Dr. Jackiewicz, was sued for negligence by the Woods family, alleging that his breach of standard of care in managing a twin pregnancy led to Kelsey Woods incurring cerebral palsy.

During the trial, the defendant objected to the plaintiffs' closing address, which invited the jury to find causation even if the pregnancy prolongation from amnioreduction was less than the five weeks testified to by experts.

The defendant requested an instruction that the jury *must* find against the plaintiffs on causation unless a five-week prolongation was proven.

The court declined this additional instruction, finding that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to infer causation with a shorter prolongation, consistent with the principles from *Benhaim v. St-Germain* regarding the use of statistics and inferences in medical malpractice causation.

Following a successful medical malpractice trial resulting in a $5.3 million judgment for the plaintiffs, the court assessed costs.

The plaintiffs had beaten their $4.5 million offer to settle, entitling them to substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The court considered the complexity of the case, the extensive expert evidence required, and the proportionality of the costs to the recovery, ultimately fixing costs at $2,201,259 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiffs, twin brothers born prematurely who developed cerebral palsy, sued their mother's obstetrician for negligence.

The trial judge found the obstetrician breached the standard of care by failing to assess the mother when she reported leaking fluid, resulting in a failure to administer a full course of antenatal corticosteroids (ACS).

The trial judge concluded this failure caused the twins' cerebral palsy and awarded damages.

The obstetrician appealed the causation finding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, with the majority holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in applying a robust and pragmatic approach to the expert evidence and concluding that the failure to administer ACS caused the injuries.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action against a hospital, nurses, and doctors following the birth of a child who suffered severe brain damage due to oxygen deprivation prior to an emergency Caesarean section.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that while there were shortfalls in care, the cause of the oxygen deprivation was unknown and therefore not caused by the defendants' negligence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on liability, holding that the trial judge erred in law by deciding the issue of factual causation before determining whether the standard of care was breached, and that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient to explain why the plaintiffs' theory of liability was rejected.

The appellants, two family physicians, appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for medical malpractice and awarding over $10 million in damages for catastrophic brain injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff during birth due to shoulder dystocia.

The appellants argued that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate and that he ignored or misapprehended defence expert evidence regarding the standard of care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's numerous findings of negligence were amply supported by the evidence, including adverse credibility findings against the appellants and admissions made by the appellants themselves.

The court concluded that the reasons for judgment were adequate and permitted meaningful appellate review.