Informed consent

The plaintiff underwent an incisional hernia repair surgery performed by the defendant general surgeon.

Following the surgery, the plaintiff developed a bowel leak requiring emergency repair and subsequent treatment for a fistula and wound infections.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action alleging the surgeon breached the standard of care by failing to order bowel preparation, failing to 'run the bowel', and improperly repairing the bowel perforation.

The court dismissed the action, preferring the evidence of the defendant's expert witness and finding that the surgeon's conduct met the standard of care in all respects.

The court also found that causation was not established.

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 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 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 plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against her rheumatologist, alleging he breached the standard of care by misdiagnosing her with gout, failing to perform a joint aspiration, and prescribing Allopurinol without informed consent, which led to her developing Stevens-Johnson Syndrome.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the defendant met the standard of care of a reasonable community rheumatologist in diagnosing gout clinically and prescribing Allopurinol.

The court also found that informed consent was obtained and that the plaintiff failed to prove causation, as expert evidence established she had a genetic predisposition making the adverse reaction inevitable regardless of the starting dose.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against his former dentist for dental malpractice, battery, and breach of fiduciary duty following a root canal treatment that resulted in a perforated tooth and subsequent extraction.

The court dismissed the claim, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide the requisite expert medical evidence to establish a breach of the standard of care.

Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff had provided informed consent for the procedures, negating the battery claim, and that the claims relating to the root canal treatment were statute-barred as they were commenced beyond the two-year limitation period.

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 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.

The accused, charged with drug possession for trafficking, brought applications under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude evidence (drugs and statements) obtained from a motel room.

The Crown also sought a ruling on the voluntariness of an accused's statement.

The court found multiple Charter breaches: police entered the motel room without informed consent, conducted a warrantless search, and breached the right to counsel.

Applying the R. v. Grant framework, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The plaintiff underwent a nephrectomy performed by the defendant urologist after being diagnosed with suspected renal cell carcinoma.

Post-surgery pathology revealed the mass was a benign renal abscess.

The plaintiff sued for medical malpractice, alleging breach of the standard of care, lack of informed consent, and that the unnecessary removal of her kidney accelerated her end-stage renal failure.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the defendant met the standard of care as the clinical presentation and imaging strongly indicated malignancy and a biopsy was not the standard of care.

The court also found that informed consent was obtained and that the plaintiff failed to prove causation, as her pre-existing poorly controlled diabetes would have necessitated a kidney transplant regardless of the nephrectomy.

The plaintiff brought an action for negligence and battery against a locum chiropractor, alleging that the chiropractor performed a cervical spine adjustment in contravention of a 'No C/S ADJ' note in her chart, causing a disc herniation at C7-T1.

The court found as a fact that the defendant did not perform a cervical adjustment, but rather performed thoracic adjustments that were consistent with the plaintiff's previous treatments.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish causation on a balance of probabilities, as the onset of neurological symptoms occurred hours later, and the disc herniation could have been caused by minor daily trauma given the plaintiff's pre-existing degenerative disc disease.

The court further found that the defendant met the standard of care and had obtained valid informed consent.

The action was dismissed.

The applicants, charged with firearms offences, brought applications to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging their s. 8 rights were violated by invalid search warrants and an unauthorized cell phone search.

The court found the search warrant for one applicant's residence was valid, but the warrant for the other applicant's residence was invalid due to insufficient corroboration of a confidential informant's tip.

However, the court admitted the handgun found at the second residence under s. 24(2).

Regarding the first applicant's cell phone, the court found the police searched it without informed consent, violating his s. 8 rights, and excluded the cell phone contents under s. 24(2).

The plaintiffs brought a medical negligence action against the defendant obstetrician following the birth of a child who suffered a catastrophic brain injury resulting in severe cerebral palsy.

The injury was caused by an occult cord prolapse during delivery.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendant failed to recognize risk factors, failed to obtain informed consent, and negligently proceeded with a vacuum-assisted delivery in the delivery room rather than the operating room.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the defendant met the standard of care in his assessment of risk factors, obtained valid consent, and appropriately exercised his clinical judgment in proceeding with the vacuum in response to a non-reassuring fetal heart rate.

Furthermore, the court found that the cord prolapse and resulting injury would have occurred regardless of the defendant's interventions.

The plaintiff underwent foot surgery by the defendant orthopedic surgeon, who had diagnosed a ganglion cyst.

During surgery, the defendant discovered a nerve tumour (schwannoma) and proceeded to excise it, causing permanent nerve damage to the plaintiff's foot.

The plaintiff sued for negligence, lack of informed consent, and battery.

The court dismissed the negligence claims regarding assessment and diagnosis but found the defendant liable for lack of informed consent and battery, as the material risks of nerve damage were not disclosed and the plaintiff did not consent to the peripheral nerve surgery.

The court awarded $75,112 in damages to the plaintiff and $5,000 to his wife under the Family Law Act.

The plaintiff underwent an ambulatory phlebectomy for a varicose vein near her ankle, during which the defendant physician inadvertently removed a 20.5 cm segment of her sural nerve, causing permanent damage.

The plaintiff sued for medical malpractice, alleging negligence in both the recommendation of the procedure and its execution.

The court found that while recommending the procedure met the standard of care, the execution of the procedure was negligent based on circumstantial evidence, including the amount of force required to avulse the nerve and the physician's failure to recognize he had hooked the nerve.

The plaintiff was awarded agreed-upon damages of $128,975.00.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action alleging that the defendant family physician's negligence during the mother's pregnancy and delivery caused the infant plaintiff to be born with cerebral palsy.

The plaintiffs argued the doctor failed to properly monitor the mother's hypertension, failed to refer her to an obstetrician, and negligently prescribed enalapril, an ACE inhibitor, shortly before birth.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the doctor met the standard of care of a family physician in the circumstances and that his clinical judgments were reasonable.

Furthermore, the court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the enalapril or the mother's hypertension caused the infant's injuries, which were likely the result of an acute intrauterine event such as cord compression.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action following the death of Frederick Fowlow, who died from a detached vascular graft four days after undergoing an axillofemoral bypass surgery performed by the defendant surgeon.

The plaintiffs alleged the surgeon was negligent for using a graft that the manufacturer expressly warned was not recommended for that specific procedure.

The court found that the surgeon breached the standard of care by failing to read the manufacturer's instructions, using the non-recommended graft, and failing to inform the patient of the manufacturer's warning.

However, the action was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to prove causation; there was insufficient evidence to establish that the detachment of the graft was caused by the type of graft used rather than being a known inherent risk of the procedure.

The self-represented plaintiff sued a psychiatrist for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent regarding medication side effects.

The defendant moved for summary judgment and a vexatious litigant order.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action because the plaintiff failed to adduce any expert medical evidence to support her claims, which is required in medical malpractice cases.

The court also declared the plaintiff a vexatious litigant under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, noting her history of persistently instituting unsuccessful and abandoned proceedings against various healthcare providers without reasonable grounds.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against the defendants relating to cosmetic facial surgery.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The plaintiff alleged breaches of the standard of care, lack of informed consent, battery, fraud, and vicarious liability.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to tender any admissible expert evidence to support her claims, while the defendants provided uncontradicted expert evidence that the standard of care was met and the procedures were appropriate.

The court applied the 'full appreciation test' under Rule 20 and concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.