CANADA · S.C.C.Court order
Split Supreme Court of Canada upholds $12 million award against anesthesiologist, clarifies remoteness test
A divided Supreme Court of Canada in Hemmings v. Padmore dismissed both appeals, leaving anesthesiologist Dr. Neil Jamensky solely liable for $12 million after Sophia Hemmings suffered permanent brain damage during an emergency C-section. The majority clarified that causation in law is a remoteness inquiry, separate from factual causation, asking whether injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence, not a mere possibility.
Order (Canadian Lawyer) → · Law360 Canada
Key points
- The court, in Hemmings v. Padmore, 2026 SCC 34, dismissed Dr. Jamensky's appeal and the Hemmings family's appeal against the obstetrician and hospital.Canadian LawyerLaw360 Canada
- Justices Rowe and O'Bonsawin wrote the majority; Justice Jamal agreed.Canadian Lawyer
- The majority said legal causation, proximate cause and cause-in-law all mean remoteness, which must stay distinct from factual causation.Canadian Lawyer
- Reasonable foreseeability requires a real risk a reasonable person would not dismiss as far-fetched.Canadian Lawyer
- Justice Martin, joined by two justices, would also have held obstetrician Dr. Lloyd Padmore liable.Canadian Lawyer
- Chief Justice Wagner would have allowed Dr. Jamensky's appeal.Canadian Lawyer