The “most obvious of cases” in which a court may find a breach of the standard of care in the absence of expert evidence about that standard are those in which accepted practice is “fraught with obvious risk” such that a breach of the standard of care may be found on the basis of common sense: ter Neuzen v. Korn, 1995 CanLII 72 (SCC),  3 S.C.R. 674, at paras. 38-41 and 51-52 [ter Neuzen]. The example cited in ter Neuzen of such an exceptional case involved a physician who left a sponge in a patient during surgery, resulting in the patient’s suffocation.
Even where a plaintiff has established breach of the standard of care, she must also prove that the breach caused injury to the plaintiff. The test for causation is the “but for” test; that is, the plaintiff must show that but for the defendant’s breach of duty the injury would not have occurred: Clements v. Clements, 2012 SCC 32 at paras. 8-10; Tripp at paras. 38-40.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.