Dr. Jaeger

The plaintiff suffered a cardiac arrest and profound brain damage following a Caesarean section delivery.

She brought a medical malpractice action against the obstetrical and anaesthesiology teams.

The court found that the obstetrical team met the standard of care.

While the staff anaesthesiologist breached the standard of care in three respects, the court concluded that these breaches did not cause the plaintiff's injuries.

The court accepted expert evidence that the cardiac arrest was caused by an unpredictable and unpreventable amniotic fluid embolism, rather than hemorrhagic shock.

The court also ruled that the claim against the anaesthesiologists was not statute-barred due to the discoverability doctrine.

The action was dismissed.

The appellant anaesthesiologist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which found he failed to maintain the standard of the profession and engaged in disgraceful conduct following the death of a patient after liposuction surgery.

The Committee revoked his certification and issued a reprimand, finding he failed to recognize the patient's critical condition, lacked insight, and dishonestly altered a resuscitation note.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee's factual findings were reasonable, the appellant was not denied procedural fairness, and the penalty of revocation was appropriate given the severity of the misconduct and lack of insight.

The applicant, an anesthesiologist, sought judicial review of an interim order made by the respondent's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee that effectively shut down his practice following a patient's death.

The court found that the Committee's decision to issue the interim order was unreasonable because there was no evidence of probable harm to future patients, only speculation based on a single incident.

Furthermore, the court held that the Committee breached procedural fairness by relying on undisclosed materials and improperly considered evidence protected under the Evidence Act.

The application was allowed and the interim order was quashed.