What is the current state of the law in Canada on medical malpractice?

In ter Neuzen v. Korn, 1995 CanLII 72 (SCC), [1995] 10 W.W.R. 1 (S.C.C.), Sopinka J. stated at 16: It is generally accepted that when a doctor acts in accordance with a recognized and respectable practice of the profession, he or she will not be found to be negligent. This is because courts do not ordinarily have the expertise to tell professionals that they are not behaving appropriately in their field. In a sense, the medical profession as a whole is assumed to have adopted procedures which are in the best interests of patients and are not inherently negligent.

The conduct of physicians must be judged in light of the knowledge that ought to have been reasonably possessed at the time of the alleged act of negligence (ter Neuzen, at para. 15). As stated in Lapointe v. Hopital Le Gardeur (1992), 1992 CanLII 119 (SCC), 90 D.L.R. (4th) 7, at 14: ...courts should be careful not to rely upon the perfect vision afforded by hindsight. In order to evaluate a particular exercise of judgment fairly, the doctor’s limited ability to foresee future events when determining a course of conduct must be borne in mind. Otherwise, the doctor will not be assessed according to the norms of the average doctor of reasonable ability in the same circumstances, but rather will be held accountable for mistakes that are apparent only after the fact.