How have courts interpreted section 8 and 9 of the Rules of Civil Procedure in medical malpractice cases?

An Ontario decision Maslen v. Chishlom [2003] O.J. No. 3960 reports an application under a similar provision of the Rules in Ontario. It is again a medical malpractice suit in which the applicant quotes paragraph 8 and 9: When presented at a trial with the opinion of two expert physicians that the defendant physician’s conduct was not a causal factor in the plaintiff’s jury, and the defendant physicians met the standard of care required of them by their peers, the judge (no matter how sympathetic he or she no doubt will be) will not accept the uninformed opinion of the lay plaintiff, even if bolstered by the plaintiff’s interpretation of the medical texts. Indeed, even if the absence of the defence medicals, I doubt that the plaintiff can meet the burden of proof that all plaintiffs, even those involved in medical negligence cases, must meet, without himself adducing expert medical testimony.