Health Law - ONCA

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 appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing he should have been granted an absolute discharge.

Amicus curiae raised additional issues regarding the fairness of the hearing, the Board's failure to resolve a treatment impasse with the Waypoint Centre, and the adequacy of the Board's reasons for dismissing the appellant's Charter arguments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Court also held that the hearing was fair, the Board reasonably declined to order further treatment options given the appellant's refusal to participate, and the Board lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested Charter remedies or order a transfer to a lesser security hospital.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable and based on the expert evidence of Dr. Woodside.

The Court held that the Board's order represented the least onerous and least restrictive disposition for the appellant at the time, and there was no basis to inquire into what might happen beyond the one-year term of the disposition.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their medical malpractice claim against the respondent doctor.

The appellants argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in finding that the cause of the patient's bleeding was an IUD rather than a laceration or perforation caused by the respondent's negligence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusions and no reviewable error in her assessment of the evidence or exercise of discretion on costs.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention in a Secure Forensic Unit with the possibility of transfer to a General Forensic Unit.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence showing the appellant had absented himself from the hospital for four months before surrendering the day before the appeal hearing.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the fresh evidence of elopement and the resulting flight risk concerns were sufficient to sustain the Board's hybrid disposition, while urging an expedited fresh review by the Board.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found the Board's decision to be reasonable and saw no reason to interfere.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their medical malpractice claim.

The appeal turned on whether the respondent doctor met his disclosure obligations before the appellant elected to have heel surgery.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusion that the doctor provided sufficient information for informed consent was reasonably supported by the evidence.

The appellant doctor sued the respondent hospital, producing emails during the litigation that the hospital suspected were fabricated.

After the action settled, the doctor applied for reappointment to the hospital's medical staff.

The hospital sought to use an affidavit obtained during the litigation, which questioned the emails' authenticity, at a Medical Advisory Committee meeting.

The application judge granted relief from the deemed undertaking rule under Rule 30.1.01(8) to permit this use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the doctor's appeal, finding no error in the application judge's exercise of discretion, as the parties were the same and the interest of justice in denouncing potentially fabricated evidence outweighed any non-existent prejudice to the appellant.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board failed to make the least onerous and least restrictive disposition by not granting the hospital discretion to permit him to live in the community.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the disposition reasonable and supported by evidence that community living was not a viable option due to the appellant's obsession with living with his daughters.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute discharge.

Amicus curiae and the hospital argued the Board erred by imposing a 24-hour supervision requirement without canvassing the parties, and by denying overnight visits.

The Court of Appeal agreed the Board should have canvassed the parties regarding the supervision requirement, which was overly restrictive.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, amending the disposition to remove the '24 hours a day' supervision requirement, but upheld the Board's decision to deny overnight passes.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision upholding two decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board, which found him incapable of refusing psychiatric and nourishment treatment.

The appellant argued the Board applied the wrong legal test or was unreasonable in its conclusion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly applied the test from Starson v. Swayze and that there was ample evidence to support the finding that the appellant's delusion rendered him unable to appreciate the consequences of his decision.

The appellant radiologist failed to detect a cancerous lesion on the respondent's liver following colon cancer surgery.

The respondent later died of metastatic colon cancer.

A jury found the appellant negligent and awarded substantial damages, concluding that the delayed diagnosis deprived the respondent of a greater than 50 percent chance of being cured.

The appellant appealed, arguing the jury's finding on causation was unreasonable, the trial judge erred in her charge regarding survival versus cure rates, and the jury failed to properly discount future income loss for adverse contingencies.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury's verdict was supported by expert evidence, the jury charge was adequate, and the damages award was reasonable.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible and detained in a psychiatric facility, appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board.

He argued that his transfer to a more restrictive unit violated his rights under sections 7 and 9 of the Charter, and sought a conditional discharge as a stand-alone remedy under section 24(1).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's findings that the transfer was necessary due to the appellant's dangerous conduct and did not violate his Charter rights.

The Court also affirmed that the Board lacks jurisdiction to grant a Charter remedy, such as a conditional discharge, that would endanger public safety and frustrate its statutory mandate.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board misunderstood the joint submission of the parties and inadvertently imposed a more restrictive condition than intended.

The appeal was allowed to correct the error by substituting the jointly submitted condition regarding community accommodations.

The accused was found unfit to stand trial and the hearing judge issued a treatment order under s. 672.58 of the Criminal Code, directing that he be taken forthwith to a designated hospital.

The hospital appealed, arguing that it had not consented to the order as required by s. 672.62 because no bed was immediately available.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the hospital's consent is a mandatory precondition that includes having the capacity to safely admit the patient.

The Court also held that the consent requirement does not violate s. 7 of the Charter, as it accords with the principles of fundamental justice by ensuring treatment orders are executed safely and balancing the needs of the accused with broader societal and medical realities.

The appellant, a serial sexual murderer, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board directing his continued detention at the Oak Ridge Division of the Mental Health Centre in Penetanguishene.

The appellant conceded he remained a significant risk to public safety but argued that a transfer to a medium secure unit at the Brockville Mental Health Centre would be the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably considered the appellant's ongoing minimization of his sexually deviant offences, the potential for reduced staff diligence in a medium secure setting, and the equivalent treatment modalities available at both facilities.

The Court concluded the Board made no error in its assessment of the statutory criteria and the appellant's placement.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that maintained his detention with privileges for supervised community accommodation.

The appellant argued the Board misapprehended evidence, failed to consider a conditional discharge, and erred by not ordering an independent psychiatric assessment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusions reasonable, noting that a conditional discharge was inappropriate given the need for supervised accommodation, and agreeing that an independent assessment was unnecessary.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that was more restrictive of his liberty than previous orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding a solid evidentiary basis for the disposition and noting the Board's intention to maintain oversight while allowing for the possibility of an earlier hearing if progress was made.

The plaintiffs appealed a summary judgment dismissing their medical malpractice action against two paramedics and an ambulance service.

The motion judge had found that while the standard of care was a genuine issue for trial, causation was not, relying on the defendants' expert opinion that the patient's survival rate was only 2.4 percent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in relying on the defendants' expert opinion because it did not address the plaintiffs' theory of the case, which posited that the patient would have survived had she been transported to the hospital immediately while she still had a heartbeat.

The Court concluded that both standard of care and causation were genuine issues requiring a trial.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering that he continue to be subject to a Conditional Discharge.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board made serious errors of law, as there was no positive evidence that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The appellant had been living in the community for almost five years, adhered to his medication, and had the support of his treatment team for an absolute discharge.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted an absolute discharge.