Toby Katie Samson

This is an appeal from a medical negligence action.

The appellants, the spouse and sons of the deceased, Brian Willick, sued Dr. Willard (emergency surgeon) and Dr. Csanadi (family doctor) for alleged negligence in treating Mr. Willick after a fall, which they claimed led to his death from a ruptured splenic hematoma.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that the doctors met the standard of care and that there was no detectable splenic injury attributable to the initial fall.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's application of causation, sufficiency of reasons on standard of care, and credibility assessments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings that the respondent doctors met their respective standards of care, deferring to the trial judge's credibility findings, and concluding that the causation analysis was not flawed given the absence of a breach of duty.

The court also noted that the trial judge's reasons, while terse, were adequate for appellate review.

The plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy performed by the defendant gynecologist.

Following the surgery, the plaintiff experienced incontinence and was diagnosed with a vesicovaginal fistula caused by two sutures inadvertently placed in her bladder.

The parties agreed on damages prior to trial, leaving only the issue of liability.

The court found that the defendant failed to adequately mobilize the bladder during the procedure, leading to the inadvertent suturing.

The court concluded that the placement of the sutures was the result of negligence rather than non-negligent surgical misadventure, and granted judgment for the plaintiff.

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.

During a civil trial, the defendant physician sought to admit hearsay statements made by his deceased office assistant regarding her attempts to contact the plaintiff to reschedule a cancelled appointment.

The court held a voir dire to determine the threshold reliability of the statements under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

Finding that the assistant's statements were corroborated by physical evidence, including a contemporaneous note and telephone records, the court ruled the statements met the threshold reliability requirement and were admissible for the truth of their contents.

The plaintiff sued three physicians for medical malpractice, alleging that their failure to urgently diagnose and treat her Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada (VKH) syndrome resulted in permanent vision loss.

The court found that the emergency physician and the ophthalmologist met the standard of care in their assessments and referral processes.

While the neuro-ophthalmologist breached the standard of care by failing to schedule an urgent appointment upon receiving the referral, the court concluded that this breach did not cause the plaintiff's vision loss, as her VKH was exceptionally aggressive and blindness was inevitable.

The action was dismissed against all defendants.

The plaintiff, Karen Stirrett, sought damages for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against three defendant doctors following the death of her spouse, David Stirrett, after an angiogram performed as part of the STREAM medical research study.

A jury found Dr. Strauss negligent but that his negligence was not causative of the death.

The court, sitting without a jury for the equitable claim, found that Dr. Strauss, as the principal investigator, owed and breached a fiduciary duty to David Stirrett by failing to disclose critical changes to the study protocol, funding, and participant numbers, which would have influenced David Stirrett's informed consent.

The court held that causation is not a requirement for recovery in breach of fiduciary duty.

Judgment was awarded in favour of the plaintiff against Dr. Strauss, while the actions against Dr. Cheema and Dr. Sheth were dismissed.