What factors, if any, should have been considered by the trial judge in the case of a plaintiff who refused to receive an injection to treat her arthritis?

The factum of the respondent lists 8 factors which, it is argued, should have led the trial judge to the conclusion that her decision to forego the injections was a reasonable one. In short, all of these factors were considered by the trial judge, at length, including the possible side effects, the purpose of the injections, the advice received from the various doctors, including the orthopaedic surgeon in the United Kingdom. Of course, he did not give equal weight to all of the evidence but weight is a matter for the trial judge and in this case the trial judge enunciated the factors which caused him to give more weight to the evidence of some witnesses than others. Whether the respondent’s failure to have the injection or to follow the instructions regarding exercise was reasonable is a question of fact for the trial judge. (See Janiak v. Ippolito, 1985 CanLII 62 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 146 per Wilson J.) There was evidence to support the trial judge’s conclusion that the respondent’s choices were unreasonable. There is no palpable and overriding error. - The impact of the unreasonable choices