Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 19 NOVEMBER 2024

Was My Doctor Negligent? Medical Malpractice Explained

Nelligan Law
Explore more from Nelligan Law

A bad outcome to care is not necessarily the product of medical malpractice or doctor negligence, but provider negligence does occur.

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Sam Shortt
Sam Shortt

A bad outcome to care is not necessarily the product of medical malpractice or doctor negligence, but provider negligence does occur.

If you're considering legal action for medical malpractice, there are three major issues to consider: standard of care, causation, and damages.

The legal approach to medical negligence was defined many years ago in the case of Crits v. Sylvester (1956). The question that must be asked is whether the physician behaved as a normal and prudent practitioner in the same field of medicine would under the circumstances. The court, lacking medical expertise, relies on medical experts to judge if the expected standard of care was met. The patient and the defence each engage experts to support their respective positions, and the court carefully weighs this evidence.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

The Coldcard Exploit: Why Victims May Have Two Routes To Recovery

A five-year-old firmware defect in Coldcard hardware wallets has enabled attackers to systematically drain an estimated $116 million in Bitcoin from over 5,200 victims since July 2026. This unprecedented exploit raises critical questions about manufacturer liability and creates two distinct legal pathways for recovery: blockchain tracing against the perpetrators and potential litigation against Canadian manufacturer Coinkite for product defects that undermined the fundamental security promise of devices mar
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
WeirFoulds LLP
WeirFoulds LLP
Article

Plaintiffs Awarded A Total Of $800,000 In Damages For Defamation (Murdy v. Barrette)

A Canadian court awarded $800,000 in damages to a couple defamed by serious false allegations of sexual assault and criminal misconduct spread through social media. The case examines how factors like the severity of accusations, use of social media platforms, and a defendant's failure to mount a defense can dramatically escalate defamation damages beyond typical awards.
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Gardiner Roberts LLP
Gardiner Roberts LLP
Article

Ontario’s New AI Rules: What Lawyers And Expert Witnesses Need To Know

Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure now include strict amendments requiring lawyers and expert witnesses to certify the authenticity of every citation and authority used in court materials. These new anti-hallucination provisions impose significant penalties for presenting AI-generated fabricated authorities, fundamentally shifting accountability for artificial intelligence use in litigation.
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Soloway Wright
Soloway Wright
Article

Not Beyond Reproach: Alberta Court Confirms Jurisdiction Over Alberta Energy Regulator

The Alberta Court of King's Bench has confirmed its jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief against the Alberta Energy Regulator despite a broadly worded statutory privative clause. This landmark decision, arising from Sumerian Oil & Gas's application to stay a suspension order affecting approximately 900 wells, represents one of the first considerations of the Supreme Court of Canada's recent Democracy Watch ruling and may significantly impact future disputes involving AER orders.
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
MLT Aikins LLP
MLT Aikins LLP
Article

Do Canadian Manufacturers Owe A Duty To Develop Safer Alternatives?

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has left open the possibility that pharmaceutical manufacturers may owe a duty of care to develop safer alternatives to their existing products, even when those products are properly approved and labeled. This decision in Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. I.F. contrasts sharply with a recent California Supreme Court ruling that rejected such a "duty to innovate," potentially setting Canada on a divergent path in product liability law.
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Torys
Torys