The definitive Canadian authority to date on this type of battery is Reibl v. Hughes (1980), 1980 CanLII 23 (SCC), 114 D.L.R. (3d) 1, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880, 14 C.C.L.T. 1. In that case the patient became paralysed and impotent during or immediately following an operation to remove an arterial occlusion. The battery aspect of the patient's claim was based upon lack of informed consent in that the operating physician had not informed him of the risk of paralysis. Laskin C.J.C. held that the failure to disclose attendant risks should go to negligence rather than to battery.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.