The test to be applied in the resolution of this issue was formulated in Reibl v. Hughes, supra, and then expanded upon in Arndt v. Smith, 1997 CanLII 360 (SCC),  2 S.C.R. 539, where Cory J. described it in this way at p. 547: The test enunciated relies on a combination of objective and subjective factors in order to determine whether the failure to disclose actually caused the harm of which the plaintiff complains. It requires that the court consider what the reasonable patient in the circumstances of the plaintiff would have done if faced with the same situation. The trier of fact must take into consideration any “particular concerns” of the patient” in determining whether the patient would have refused treatment if given all the information about the possible risks.
"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.