No remedy in medical negligence: fault without causation (1)

Briante v. Vancouver Island Health Authority, 2014 BCSC 1511, which I first discussed, here, a few days ago, is a stark reminder that, even in medical negligence, fault alone is not enough. The causation requirement, whatever it is held to mean, must still be satisfied. The action failed, ultimately, because, on the evidence, the fault of neither of the negligent nurse nor negligent physician, could validly be held  to satisfy the balance of probability requirement that the negligence have been necessary for the occurrence of the injury. There was no doubt that there was a least a possibility of  a connection, but that was not enough. Put another way, although the trial judge did not express the situation this way, the most the plaintiffs established was a less than 50% chance that, had the nurse or physician not been negligent, the injury would not have occurred. But that, as a matter of law, was not enough, if the governing test for causation was the but-for test (as it was).

Continue reading

I’m number #2,003,514

According to Amazon.ca, my long-out-of-print Apportionment of Fault in Tort (Toronto, Canada Law Book, 1981) – yup, that’s the publication year – is “#2,003,514 in Books”.  The ranking is, apparently, of Amazon’s “most popular products based on sales”.  Unfortunately, the site doesn’t provide an obvious way to find out what books are just ahead and just behind mine. Nor does the site provide an obvious way of finding out how many books Amazon.ca lists.

Worth Reading and Pondering: Briante v. Vancouver Island Health Authority, 2014 BCSC 1511

Some comments on the trial decision, which you’ll find here.

As usual, the focus is on the causation aspect. Based on the reasons as published, the causation issue in Briante was argued only on but-for grounds. It’s worth asking if there was at least one other approach.

Continue reading

Is it something in B.C. water? air?

The “151” in the top line  of the graphic, below, is the number of cases in which Clements v Clements, 2012 SCC 32, [2012] 2 SCR 181  has been cited, in reasons on CANLII, in court or tribunal reasons since Clements was released in mid-2012. It’s 151 times in total, 136 by courts and 15 by tribunals. To be more accurate, it should be 150 since the 151 includes Clements itself at the SCC

The 2nd number in the top line -49 – is the total number of court reasons only since January 2014. It’s 54 if one includes tribunals. The court distribution is: BC 36, AB 3, ON 7, NS 3.

Clements stats Aug 2014

CanLII – Clements cites numbers Aug 2014

Appeals; contract interpretation; worrying about the law, the judges, and the experts

from Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53 per Rothstein J.

(a) When Is Contractual Interpretation a Question of Law?

[42]    … For the purpose of identifying the appropriate standard of review or, as is the case here, determining whether the requirements for leave to appeal are met, reviewing courts are regularly required to determine whether an issue decided at first instance is a question of law, fact, or mixed fact and law.

Continue reading