|
Evidence - Medical - General. Schickedanz v. Schickedanz
In Schickedanz v. Schickedanz (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an estates appeal, this brought against the finding that a "purported codicil" had "been made in circumstances of suspicion relating to Elma’s knowledge and approval of its contents, and her capacity to execute it".
Here the court considered an issue of medical evidence:[25] Nor is there any basis for finding that the trial judge relied on the notes alone as opinion evidence, contrary to the agreement between the parties that those notes were not to be used for this purpose, and contrary to the sensible admonition made by Corbett J. in Johnson v. Huchkewich, 2010 ONSC 6002, at para. 46, that “[c]are must be taken in reading [a physician’s] clinical notes or in interpreting their diagnosis”. In his testimony, the doctor was questioned about the opinions that his clinical notes contained, and as indicated, he did not recant them. His testimony effectively incorporated the material opinions expressed in his notes. . Janic v. Janic [malingering]
In Janic v. Janic (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal of a Divorce Act 'motion to change', here regarding child support.
In this brief quote the court considers the rarely-litigated issue of 'malingering', coupled here with that of an medical professional uncritically accepting the patent's stated symptoms and/or stating the same equally uncritically in their professional notes, for whatever reason:[16] The appellant claims that the motion judge denied him procedural fairness by “dismissing expert psychiatric reports” as “self reported”. We see no merit in this argument. What the appellant characterizes as “reports” were consultation notes of two doctors who recorded the appellant’s self-reported symptoms, which the motion judge found to be “demonstrably unreliable”.
|
