Informed consent

The plaintiff, Xuan Wu, underwent a Brazilian Butt Lift at the Toronto Cosmetic Surgery Institute and subsequently developed a significant infection.

She sued Dr. Martin Jugenburg and his clinic, alleging that she did not provide informed consent because she was not made aware of the risk of infection.

The court found that informed consent was properly obtained through a series of consultations and written materials, and that the process met the legal standard.

The action was dismissed.

The appellant, G.T., challenged a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming the criteria for issuing a Community Treatment Order (CTO) under the Mental Health Act.

The appeal focused on whether there was informed consent by the substitute decision maker (SDM) and whether the Board erred by relying on uncorroborated hearsay.

The court found that the SDM was properly informed and consented to the treatment plan, and that the Board did not make a palpable and overriding error.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff sued her dentist for negligence and lack of informed consent following a wisdom tooth extraction that led to a severe facial space infection.

The plaintiff alleged the dentist failed to meet the standard of care by not taking updated X-rays, injecting local anesthetic near the infection, not referring her to a specialist, and not extracting an opposing tooth.

The court found that the plaintiff provided informed consent and that the dentist met the standard of care.

The court accepted expert evidence that the infection was brewing prior to the extraction and that the extraction likely mitigated its course.

The claim was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's medical malpractice and informed consent action.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented for most of the litigation, failed to serve any expert medical report to support her claims, despite repeated requests from the defendant's counsel and court orders.

The court found that expert evidence was required for both the negligence and informed consent claims, and that the case did not fall within the "clearest of cases" exception.

Consequently, the court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action.

The plaintiff, Songfu Liu, sued his surgeon, Dr. Jonathan Chan, alleging fraudulent inducement to undergo unnecessary prostate surgery by manipulating test results.

Both parties brought motions for summary judgment.

The court found no evidence of fraud, confirming that Mr. Liu had prostate cancer and that the surgery was medically appropriate based on expert evidence.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the entire action.

The defendants, Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences and Dr. Omar Ghaffar, brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss a medical malpractice action.

The plaintiff, Donald Jameson Whitehead, failed to file any expert evidence or affidavit evidence in response, despite being self-represented and advised of the requirements.

The court found that the defendants had discharged their evidentiary burden by providing expert opinions that their care met the standard of care and that consent was properly obtained.

Given the plaintiff's failure to adduce expert evidence, which is generally fatal in medical malpractice cases except in the clearest of circumstances, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motions for summary judgment were granted, and the action was dismissed.

The appellants (defendant doctors) appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for failing to obtain informed consent for a multi-step medical treatment plan that resulted in catastrophic brain injury to the plaintiff.

The appeal addressed the nature and extent of a physician's duty to obtain informed consent, on which physicians this duty rests, sufficiency of reasons, evidentiary issues (including expert witness exclusion), and costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that all three appellant doctors failed to provide adequate disclosure regarding the cumulative risks of the treatment plan, and that the plaintiff would not have proceeded had he been properly informed.

Leave to appeal costs was refused.

The defendant, Dr. Sheldon Victor Pollack, brought a motion to dismiss a certified class action for delay under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The class action, initiated in 2003 by the representative plaintiff Anna Barbiero, alleged medical negligence and battery related to Dr. Pollack's injection of Injectable Grade Liquid Silicone (IGLS) for lip augmentation.

The court found the 21-year delay inordinate and inexcusable, with significant periods of unexplained inactivity.

The plaintiff failed to rebut the strong presumption of prejudice, and actual prejudice was established due to the loss of the IGLS sample, which was crucial for the defendant's ability to test its composition and defend against liability and causation claims.

The court granted the motion, dismissing the class action for delay, and ordered that notice be provided to class members.

The plaintiff, Nino Kotorashvili, sued the defendant, Dr. Moo Hyung Lee, for medical negligence following a re-fracture of her clavicle after hardware removal surgery.

The court found Dr. Lee negligent for breaching the standard of care by prematurely removing the hardware without updated imaging and failing to obtain informed consent regarding the increased risk of re-fracture.

The re-fracture led to a malunion and a third reconstructive surgery.

The court awarded the plaintiff $35,000 in general damages for the re-fracture, prolonged recovery, and the need for the third surgery, plus pre-judgment interest at 2%.

The accused, a spiritual healer, was charged with three counts of sexual assault against women during healing ceremonies.

The complainants testified that the accused touched them inappropriately with his hand in intimate areas, contrary to the stated practice of the ceremony.

The accused denied any hand touching, asserting he only used a deer bone as part of the ritual and that hand touching would be inappropriate.

The court assessed the credibility of the complainants, noting their initial self-blame and later realization of the impropriety after hearing similar complaints from others.

The court found the complainants' evidence credible and reliable, rejecting the accused's denials due to inconsistencies and implausibility.

Applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.), the court concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the touching occurred without consent or informed consent, leading to findings of guilt on all charges.

The defendant, Dr. Yair Karas, moved for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff's medical malpractice action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act.

The plaintiff, Denise Bosse, alleged claims of uninformed consent and breach of standard of care related to Radial Keratotomy (RK) surgeries performed by the defendant between 1994 and 2005.

The court found that the plaintiff had actual and constructive knowledge of her injury, its cause by the defendant's acts, and that a legal proceeding was an appropriate remedy by July 11, 2011, when she filed a complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Consequently, the two-year limitation period expired in July 2013, nine months before the Statement of Claim was issued in April 2014.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's argument that the standard of care claim was only discoverable upon receipt of an expert report in November 2013, emphasizing that knowledge of a breach of standard of care is not required for discoverability.

The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

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 defendant was tried on charges of Mischief and Over 80.

He sought to exclude evidence due to Charter violations, specifically an unreasonable search and seizure under section 8, arising from the police's warrantless entry into his father's home.

The court found that the police entry was unlawful as the consent obtained from the defendant's father was not informed, lacking disclosure of the police's dual purpose (welfare check and criminal investigation) and the father's right to refuse entry.

Consequently, the evidence obtained from this breach was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, leading to the dismissal of all charges.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to include a claim for battery and punitive damages against the defendant plastic surgeon.

The court found that the proposed amendment to include battery introduced new material facts and a new cause of action that was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, due to inordinate delay.

However, the court allowed the amendment to include a claim for punitive damages, finding no prejudice.

The respondent's husband died during a follow-up angiogram as part of a clinical trial.

The respondent sued the principal investigator, Dr. Strauss, for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The jury found breach of standard of care but no causation in negligence.

The trial judge found breach of an ad hoc fiduciary duty and awarded damages, stating causation was removed from the analysis in the fiduciary context.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred by not examining causation in the fiduciary context.

The Court found no causal link between the alleged fiduciary breach and the loss, relying on the jury's finding on causation in the negligence claim, as the claims were based on substantially the same conduct.

The action was dismissed.

The Plaintiff, Patrick Harbord, brought an action for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against Pierre Dupont, a podiatrist.

The Defendants, Pierre Dupont and Dupont Chiropody Professional Corporation, did not attend trial, and their pleadings were struck.

The action against Dupont Chiropody Professional Corporation was dismissed.

The Court found Pierre Dupont negligent in his treatment of the Plaintiff's right foot, failing to meet the standard of care by recommending and performing unnecessary stent surgeries without first attempting conservative treatments and without providing properly informed consent.

The Plaintiff suffered a permanent, significant disability to his right foot.

The Court awarded the Plaintiff $140,000 in general non-pecuniary damages, $76,000 for loss of income/competitive advantage, $5,465.96 for a subrogated claim, $8,544.10 for repayment of surgical services, $420 for orthotic expenses, $1,260 for future orthotic expenses, and $80,795.91 in substantial indemnity costs, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The defendant, Dr. Vaidyanathan, brought a motion to strike portions of the Plaintiffs' Statement of Claim, specifically allegations of a pattern of misconduct (similar fact pleadings) and claims for exemplary, punitive, and aggravated damages.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the similar fact pleadings, finding they possessed significant probative value, particularly in relation to claims concerning the defendant's knowledge, skill, experience, and fiduciary duty, which outweighed any added complexity.

However, the court granted the motion to strike the claims for exemplary, punitive, and aggravated damages due to insufficient pleading, granting the Plaintiffs leave to amend their Statement of Claim within 60 days to provide a proper basis for these damages.

The plaintiff sued her plastic surgeon for negligence, alleging lack of informed consent for a breast reduction surgery.

She claimed the surgeon failed to disclose the material risk of fat necrosis, which was elevated due to her obesity and smoking, and which she subsequently suffered.

The court found that while the surgeon did not specifically disclose the risk of fat necrosis, and should have, the plaintiff failed to establish causation.

Applying a modified objective test, the court concluded that both the plaintiff and a reasonable person in her circumstances would have proceeded with the elective surgery due to significant and persistent back pain, despite the very low, albeit material, risk.

Therefore, the surgeon was not held liable for damages.

The defendant physician brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the claims of the infant plaintiffs (triplets) for "wrongful life." The claims arose from the physician's alleged negligence in prescribing a fertility drug to the mother, leading to multiple births and premature delivery, resulting in the triplets' serious disabilities.

The court, applying established Ontario jurisprudence, found no duty of care owed by the physician to unconceived children, as the alleged negligence occurred prior to conception.

The motion was granted, and the infant plaintiffs' claims were dismissed without leave to amend.

The Grand River Hospital brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiff's medical malpractice claim against it.

The plaintiff, self-represented, relied on an American orthopedic surgeon's expert report.

The court found the plaintiff's expert was not qualified to opine on Canadian hospital procedures or nursing/physiotherapy standards, and his report primarily attributed negligence to the doctors, not the hospital.

The expert failed to establish a causal link between alleged hospital failures and the plaintiff's injuries.

The plaintiff's complaints regarding customer service or minor issues without resulting harm were deemed insufficient to raise a triable issue of medical malpractice against the hospital.

The motion was granted, and the action against Grand River Hospital was dismissed with costs, while the action against the doctors continued.