The court found no evidence that he manipulated medical tests
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed a fraud claim against a surgeon who performed prostate surgery, finding no evidence of manipulated medical tests and confirming adherence to standard care protocols.
The plaintiff claimed fraud rather than negligence, alleging manipulation of test results to induce surgery, which he argued vitiated his consent. Both parties sought summary judgment—the plaintiff in his favour and the defendant for dismissal.
The court found indisputable evidence of the plaintiff's prostate cancer at the relevant time. Three biopsies, the last showing intermediate-risk prostate cancer, indicated the need for treatment. Expert evidence confirmed surgery or radiation therapy was appropriate. The court found no fraud, noting that the defendant had no role in interpreting biopsy results, which an independent pathologist conducted.
The plaintiff underwent three biopsies. The third biopsy confirmed intermediate-risk prostate cancer. The defendant recommended surgery or radiation therapy, and the plaintiff chose surgery, providing written consent after discussing the risks and benefits. The court noted that the decision was based on appropriate medical advice and consistent with the standard of care, with the consent form signed a week before surgery.
The plaintiff experienced post-surgery complications, including bladder issues and an inguinal hernia, known risks. Post-operative pathology showed a lower-grade cancer, leading the plaintiff to claim misdiagnosis. However, expert evidence, including from the plaintiff’s expert, confirmed the cancer diagnosis and treatment appropriateness.
An urology and prostatic surgery expert provided evidence supporting the defendant’s actions, confirming the surgery recommendation's validity and post-surgery care appropriateness. The court reviewed the plaintiff’s expert report, which aligned with the defence's position and did not support the fraud claim.
The Superior Court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the fraud claims, determining the allegations were unsubstantiated and inconsistent with the evidence. Applying the summary judgment analytical approach, the court concluded the plaintiff’s claims lacked factual or legal basis, with no further evidence likely to alter this conclusion.
The court dismissed the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant’s motion for summary dismissal.
