What is the test for establishing a causal link between a medical practitioner’s failure to inform a patient of any material, special or unusual risks involved with a medical procedure or treatment?

For the purpose of establishing a causal link between a medical practitioner’s failure to inform a patient of any material, special or unusual risks involved with a medical procedure or treatment and any injury suffered by that patient, a plaintiff must establish that had they been properly informed of the material risks associated with that treatment or procedure, the reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would have declined the treatment. See Reibl at p. 928. In this regard, the plaintiffs are correct when they contend that, in addressing the issue of causation, the trier of fact is required to inquire into evidence presented by the plaintiff and determine whether a reasonable person, in the particular circumstances of the plaintiff, would have declined the treatment being proposed had they been properly informed. See Ediger v. Johnston, 2013 SCC 18 at paras. 28-29, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 98. The Admissibility of Expert Opinion