Risk and consequences – Supreme Court shapes law on informed consent, scope of disclosure

In 2013 the Supreme Court of Canada considered the law on informed consent in two landmark decisions: Ediger v. Johnston [2013] S.C.J. No. 18, and Cojocaru v. British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Centre [2013] S.C.J. No. 30. This paper will discuss two often overlooked aspects of the law of informed consent – the physician’s obligation to explain the implications should a risk materialize, and the need for the plaintiff to prove “double causation” in consent cases.