Supreme Court Judgments

armstrong v. ward

Karen Armstrong                                                                                           Appellant

v.

Colin Ward                                                                                                  Respondent

and

Healthcare Insurance Reciprocal of Canada and

Ontario Trial Lawyers Association                                                            Interveners

Indexed as: Armstrong v. Ward

2021 SCC 1

File No.: 39049.

2021: January 18.

Present: Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario

                    Torts — Negligence — Standard of care — Patient’s left ureter injured during laparoscopic colectomy — Injury causing blockage of ureter leading to removal of left kidney — Patient suing surgeon — Trial judge finding that surgeon breached standard of care and that breach caused damage to patient’s ureter which required removal of kidney — Majority of Court of Appeal holding that trial judge erred in law in identifying and applying standard of care and setting aside trial decision — Dissenting judge finding that there was no basis to interfere with trial judge’s approach to standard of care and that trial judge’s conclusions were fully supported by evidence — Trial decision restored.

                    APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Juriansz, van Rensburg and Paciocco JJ.A.), 2019 ONCA 963 (sub nom. Armstrong v. Royal Victoria Hospital), 452 D.L.R. (4th) 555, 61 C.C.L.T. (4th) 181, [2019] O.J. No. 6187 (QL), 2019 CarswellOnt 19957 (WL Can.), setting aside a decision of Mulligan J., 2018 ONSC 2439, [2018] O.J. No. 2010 (QL). Appeal allowed.

                    Ryan Breedon and Jan Marin, for the appellant.

                    Mark Veneziano and Jaan Lilles, for the respondent.

                    Anna Marrison, for the intervener the Healthcare Insurance Reciprocal of Canada.

                    Barbara Legate, for the intervener the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association.

                    The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

[1]               The Chief Justice — The appeal is allowed for the reasons of Justice van Rensburg, with costs throughout.

[2]               The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the trial judgment is restored.

                    Judgment accordingly.

                    Solicitors for the appellant: Breedon Litigation, Barrie, Ont.; Gluckstein Lawyers, Toronto.

                    Solicitors for the respondent: Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin, Toronto.

                    Solicitors for the intervener the Healthcare Insurance Reciprocal of Canada: Borden Ladner Gervais, Toronto.

                    Solicitors for the intervener the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association: Legate Personal Injury Lawyers, London, Ont.