Rarotonga, 2010

Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources

(Ontario/Canada)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | SPPA / Fairness (Administrative)
SMALL CLAIMS / CIVIL LITIGATION / CIVIL APPEALS / JUDICIAL REVIEW / Practice Directives / Civil Portals

Home / About / Democracy, Law and Duty / Something Big / Testimonials / Conditions of Use

Civil and Administrative
Litigation Opinions
for Self-Reppers

Simon's Favourite Charity -
Little Friends Lefkada (Greece)
Cat and Dog Rescue


TOPICS


Torts - Negligence - Medical Malpractice

. Hasan v. Trillium Health Centre (Mississauga)

In Hasan v. Trillium Health Centre (Mississauga) (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismisses a medical malpractice appeal:
[12] To succeed in a medical malpractice lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that: (a) the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff; (b) the defendant breached the standard of care; (c) the defendant’s breach caused the plaintiff to suffer a bodily injury; and (d) the injury must not be too remote a result of the defendant’s conduct: Willick v. Willard, 2023 ONCA 792, citing Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2008 SCC 27, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 114, at para. 3.
. Hemmings v. Peng

In Hemmings v. Peng (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from a medical malpractice case, here where a pregnant patient had a heart attack during surgery resulting in brain damage.

Here the court sets out the negligence standard of care for medical specialists:
[30] The trial judge articulated the proper standard of care against which to assess the acts and omissions of Dr. Padmore, an obstetrician: his conduct must be assessed in light of the conduct of other ordinary specialists, who possess a reasonable level of knowledge, competence, and skill expected of professionals in Canada in that field – that is the degree of skill of an average specialist in the field: ter Neuzen v. Korn, 1995 CanLII 72 (SCC), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 674, at para. 33.
. Levac v. James

In Levac v. James (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal briefly states an essential element of medical malpractice:
[48] In a medical malpractice case, the court must determine what a reasonable physician would have done (or not done) in order to meet the standard of care: Armstrong v. Royal Victoria Hospital, 2019 ONCA 963 at para. 87, per van Rensburg J.A. (dissenting), rev’d 2021 SCC 1 for the reasons of van Rensburg J.A. In my view, it was open to the trial judge, relying on the expert evidence, the evidence of nurses who worked with Dr. James, and Dr. James’ own evidence, to conclude that he breached the applicable standard of care by not consistently using an aseptic technique.




CC0

The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.




Last modified: 26-07-24
By: admin