How have courts interpreted disclosure in medical malpractice cases?

In Ciarlariello v Schacter, 1993 CanLII 138 (SCC), [1993] 2 SCR 119, Cory J. for the majority explained Riebl v. Hughes and stated at p 133: Riebl v. Hughes, supra, indicates that the disclosure which must be made to a patient will often be more than that which the medical profession might consider appropriate to divulge. Although expert medical evidence on this issue is still relevant, it is no longer decisive in determining whether or not sufficient information was given to a patient to enable that patient to make an informed consent. The test now focuses on what the patient would want to know ...