Case information

Appeals – Standard of review – Jury verdict – Jury trial – Civil procedure – Medical malpractice – Negligence law – Does the appellate standard of review of a civil jury verdict as unreasonable require an assessment of the reasonableness of the verdict based on a review of the whole of the evidence, or is a finding of ‘some evidence’ sufficient to uphold the verdict? – Is the analytical framework and standard of review of a jury verdict as unreasonable the same in principle for review of both criminal and civil jury verdicts? – What is the standard of appellate review applicable to review of a jury’s particulars, is there a presumption the jury properly understood and correctly applied the law, and how can any such presumption be rebutted?

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Following a jury trial in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the applicant, a neurologist, was held liable, in accordance with the jury’s verdict, for damages suffered by his former patient, the respondent.The applicant appealed, arguing the jury’s finding that he breached the applicable standard of care was plainly unreasonable and unjust. He also advanced that the jury’s explanations for its conclusions revealed that it did not act judicially.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario unanimously dismissed the appeal. First, the court held that a jury could reasonably find that the applicant breached the standard of care, relying on the evidence of the respondents’ expert neurologist and rejecting the opinions of the applicant’s neurology experts on the standard of care. Second, the court held that the jury’s answers, read contextually and generously, showed that it acted judicially.