Laferrière v. Lawson, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 541
Dr. Ray Lawson Appellant
v.
Me Nicole Laferrière in her capacity as
testamentary executor of the
late Mireille Fortier‑Dupuis Respondent
indexed as: laferrière v. lawson
File No.: 21334.
1990: March 22; 1991: March 21.
Present: Lamer C.J.* and La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec
Civil responsibility ‑‑ Medical malpractice ‑‑ Causation ‑‑ Theory of loss of chance ‑‑ Doctor performing biopsy but failing to inform patient of cancerous condition found or follow up on patient's health in appropriate manner ‑‑ Patient later dying of generalized cancer ‑‑ Whether action against doctor can succeed even where it is not proven that patient's fate would have been different absent the doctor's fault ‑‑ Whether theory of loss of chance should be introduced into Quebec civil law in matters of medical responsibility.
Physicians and surgeons ‑‑ Medical malpractice ‑‑ Causation ‑‑ Theory of loss of chance ‑‑ Doctor performing biopsy but failing to inform patient of cancerous condition found or follow up on patient's health in appropriate manner ‑‑ Patient later dying of generalized cancer ‑‑ Whether action against doctor can succeed even where it is not proven that patient's fate would have been different absent the doctor's fault ‑‑ Whether theory of loss of chance should be introduced into Quebec civil law in matters of medical responsibility.
Respondent is testamentary executor of the late D, who consulted appellant about the presence of an abnormal lump in her breast. Appellant performed a biopsy and removed the lump, which was found to be cancerous, but did not inform D of the cancerous condition or arrange any follow‑up treatment. D's health later deteriorated; she was diagnosed as having generalized cancer and underwent surgery and various treatments. She brought an action against appellant for damages, but died before the proceedings had been completed. Respondent continued the suit, which the trial judge dismissed on the merits. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision. The majority of the court found that appellant's fault resulted in the loss of a real and serious chance to benefit from proper medical care, which should give rise to damages.
Held (La Forest J. dissenting): The appeal should be allowed in part.
Per Lamer C.J. and L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLach