What is the scope of a surgeon's duty of disclosure?

The content of the duty of disclosure was described by Laskin C.J.C. in Reibl v. Hugues, supra: It is now undoubted that the relationship between surgeon and patient gives rise to a duty of the surgeon to make disclosure to the patient of what I would call all material risks attending the surgery which is recommended. The scope of the duty of disclosure was considered in Hopp v. Lepp [ 1980 CanLII 14 (SCC), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 192.] at p. 210, where it was generalized as follows: In summary, the decided cases appear to indicate that, in obtaining the consent of a patient for the performance upon him of a surgical operation, a surgeon, generally, should answer any specific questions posed by the patient as to the risks involved and should, without being questioned, disclose to him the nature of the proposed operation, its gravity, any material risks and any special or unusual risks attendant upon the performance of the operation. However, having said that, it should be added that the scope of the duty of disclosure and whether or not it has been breached are matters which must be decided in relation to the circumstances of each particular case.

In Groves v. Morton, 2006 CarswellOnt 7578 at para. 11, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice more recently summarized the past jurisprudence and described what must be considered when determining whether the doctor’s disclosure was adequate: The first arm of the test involves a consideration of whether the medical practitioner adequately advised the patient of: (i) the nature of the procedure; (ii) the benefits and risks of the procedure; (iii) any alternatives to the procedure; and (iv) the likely prognosis of not having the procedure.