What factors must be considered by a trier of fact in determining whether a patient would have refused treatment?

It is clear the subjective circumstances and characteristics of the individual plaintiff must be considered when addressing the issue of causation. In Arndt v. Smith, 1997 CanLII 360 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 539, Cory J. stated: 6 ...The trier of fact must take into consideration any "particular concerns" of the patient and any "special considerations affecting the particular patient" in determining whether the patient would have refused treatment if given all the information about the possible risks. ... 9 ...Which aspects of the plaintiff's personal circumstances should be attributed to the reasonable person? There is no doubt that objectively ascertainable circumstances, such as a plaintiff's age, income, marital status, and other factors, should be taken into consideration. However, Laskin C.J. didn't stop there. He went on and stated that "special considerations" affecting the particular patient should be considered, as should any "specific questions" asked of the physician by the patient. In my view this means that the "reasonable person" who sets the standard for the objective test must be taken to possess the patient's reasonable beliefs, fears, desires and expectations...

A plaintiff’s aversion towards a certain form of treatment is thus a relevant consideration. In Finch v. Carpenter, [1993] B.C.J. No. 1918 (S.C.), the plaintiff’s fear of dentists led MacDonald J. to consider the issue of causation objectively, “but from the point of view of a patient with greater than normal apprehension of dental procedures.”