British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Hauk v Shatzko, 2020 BCSC 344 (CanLII):
Where a plaintiff has not pursued a course of recommended treatment, the onus is on the defendant to prove that the plaintiff acted unreasonably: Chiu v. Chiu, 2002 BCCA 618 at para. 57.
The test is a subjective/objective one. The question is whether a reasonable patient, with all of the information that the plaintiff had at hand, ought reasonably to have undergone the recommended treatment: Gregory v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2011 BCCA 144 at para. 56.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.