One fertility doctor becomes infamous after using his own sperm to artificially inseminate unsuspecting patients in a number of cases.

In a historic decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal awarded over $14 million to plaintiffs, respecting the jury’s verdict.

A case in British Columbia demonstrates how informed consent is considered when assessing alleged medical malpractice by chiropractors.

A patient passed away from a stroke following surgery and the family of the patient appealed the trial judge’s decision to dismiss the case.

A plaintiff claims that a neurosurgeon, neuroradiologist, and diagnostic radiologist did not get informed permission before performing treatments that caused a brain hemorrhage and serious long-term deficits.

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal orders new trial due to flawed jury instructions.

Two doctors are alleged to have caused one woman’s stroke, creating an important precedent on causation and informed consent.

A case brought before the Supreme Court demonstrates how physicians should only be assessed according to the information that was available to them at the time of the potential negligence.

The defendants’ appeal to overturn the trial judgment, which held them responsible for shortcomings in prenatal maternal monitoring, was unsuccessful.

An important case where the Supreme Court of Canada established guidelines for the admissibility of expert evidence in civil cases.

Doctors are found negligent but the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the case due to the plaintiff’s inability to prove that the injuries were primarily caused by the negligence.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Reibl v. Hughes held that a plaintiff must be properly informed of the risks of a medical procedure before giving consent.

A Case brought before the Ontario Court of Appeal demonstrates how issues of causation and standard of care are handled in class action medical malpractice cases. 

In this important case, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a specialist owes a duty to conduct their practice to the same standard as a prudent and diligent doctor in the same circumstances.

A case brought before the Supreme Court of Canada demonstrates the possibility of successfully using the “but for” test to prove causation.

This leading case defines a reasonable physician’s standard of care.

The Supreme Court of Canada further clarifies a patient’s burden of proof in a medical malpractice case.

Determining Causation & Standard of Care in a medical malpractice case.

How obtaining a proper impartial expert witness can make or break a medical malpractice case.