Wrongful Birth

Conclusion

As can be seen by the case law, advancing a medical malpractice claim for wrongful birth requires a careful consideration of the evidence and the circumstances of the individual plaintiff. Particularly where the claim involves the failure to perform prenatal testing or advise the plaintiff of the risk of fetal abnormality, counsel must gather as much evidence as possible to establish that the plaintiff – given their particular circumstances – would have chosen to terminate the pregnancy had the defendant not been negligent.

In addition, the various approaches taken by courts to characterize the plaintiff parent’s loss must be taken into account. Depending on the facts of a case and approach taken by a particular court, plaintiff parents may find their award for the cost of raising their child surprisingly limited and difficult to accept. The considerable uncertainty in the assessment of damages for healthy children and historical undermining of the harms suffered by plaintiffs can discourage potential actions. Due to the scarcity of wrongful birth claims, it is likely that many more cases will have to go before the courts to settle all of the issues in this area of medical malpractice.

1. Kealey v Berezowski (1996), 30 OR (3d) 37, 1996 CarswellOnt 2320 (Ct J) at paras 38-40 [Kealey].
2. Gerald B. Robertson & Ellen I. Picard, Legal Liability of Doctors and Hospitals in Canada, 5^th ed (Toronto: Carswell, 2017) at 338.
3. TS v Adey, 2017 ONSC 397.
4. Ibid at para 389.
5. Bosard v Davey, 2005 MBQB 80.
6. Ibid at para 71.
7. Bruce Feldthusen, “Suppressing Damages in Involuntary Parenthood Actions: Contorting Tort Law,
8. Denying Reproductive Freedom, and Discriminating Against Mothers” (2014) 29:1 Can J Fam L 11 at 22-23 [Feldthusen].
9. Cherry (Guardian ad litem of) v Borsman, 75 DLR (4^th) 668, 1990 CarswellBC 678 (SC) at para 3.
10. Ibid at para 109.
11. RH v Hunter (1996), 22 OTC 204 (GD), 1996 CarswellOnt 4856 (Ct J).
12. Krangle (Guardian ad litem of) v Brisco, 2002 SCC 9.
13. Family Relations Act, RSBC 1996, c 128, ss 87-88.
14. Colp v Ringrose (1976), 3 LMQ 72 (Alta TD) at 73.
15. Doiron v Orr, 86 DLR (3d) 719, 1978 CarswellOnt 781 (SC) at para 32.
16. Cryderman v Ringrose, [1978] 3 WWR 481, 1978 CarswellAlta 231 (CA) at para 5.
17. Cataford v Moreau (1978), 114 DLR (3d) 585, 1978 CanLII 1920 (QC SC) at paras 88, 96-98.
18. Kealey, supra note 1 at para 41.
19. Bevilacqua v Altenkirk, 2004 BCSC 945 at paras 82-87 [Bevilacqua], citing Kealey, supra note 1.
20. Ibid at para 86.
21. Kealey, supra note 1 at paras 99-103.
22. Ibid at para 63.  
23. Ibid at para 81.
24. Ibid at paras 78, 86.
25. Ibid at para 66.
26. Ibid at para 68.
27. MY v Boutros, 2002 ABQB 362 [MY].
28. Ibid at paras 156-157.
29. Fatal Accidents Act, RSA 2000, c F-8.
30. MY, supra note 27at paras 154-155.
31. Ibid at para 147.
32. Ibid at para 149.
33. TG v Boutros, 2009 ABQB 651 at para 70.
34. Bevilacqua, supra note 19at para 214.
35. Ibid at para 178.
36. Ibid at para 194.
37. Ibid at para 105.
38. Ibid atparas 180-181.
39. Ibid atparas 106-107.
40. MS v Baker, 2001 ABQB 1032.
41. Ibid at para 163.
42. Ibid at para 160.
43. Ibid at paras 152-153.
44. Ibid at para 163.
45. Stockford v Johnston Estate, 2008 NBQB 118 at paras 106-108 [Stockford].
46. Ibid at para 96.
47. Ibid at para 97.
48. Ibid at paras 107-108.
49. Kealey, supra note 1 at para 83.
50. Janiak v Ippolito, [1985] 1 SCR 146 at 147, 16 DLR (4^th) 1.
51. Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., [1978] 2 SCR 229 at 230, 83 DLR (3d) 452.
52. Keats v Pearce, 48 NFLD & PEIR 102, 1984 CarswellNfld 103 (TD) at paras 4-5.
53. Feldthusen, supra note 7 at 43. [1] McFarlane v Tayside Health Board, [2000] 2 AC 59, [1999] 4 All ER 961.