Applying the above principles, the first step in determining whether the scope of protection was intended to apply to these facts is to characterize the present action. This is not a derivative action where, for example, the estate of the patient sues. This is an action by a stranger in the true sense; a member of the general public who must establish a duty of care owed to her by the physician. While any duty, and the corresponding standard of care, may relate to the physician's method of treatment of his patient, the action is not based on any other obligation to the patient. To be successful in her action (an issue on which I make no comment) the respondent must bring herself within the two-step approach outlined in Kamloops v. Nielson, 1984 CanLII 21 (SCC),  2 S.C.R. 2.
Get a full legal research memo!
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.