What is the test for determining whether a doctor has failed to disclose to a patient?

Arndt v. Smith, supra, is the leading authority on the issue of causation as applied in medical negligence cases where the negligence consists of a failure by the doctor to meet his or her disclosure obligations. Cory J., for the majority, reaffirmed the modified objective test first described by Laskin C.J. in Reibl, supra. Cory J. said at para. 6: The test enunciated [in Reibl] 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 and any “special considerations affecting the particular patient” in determining whether the patient would have refused treatment if given all the information about the possible risks [italics in original, underline added].