Episode
Sophia Hemmings, by her Litigation Guardian, Rosalie Brown, et al. v. Lloyd Gregory Padmore, et al. (41350)
- Published
- Feb 11, 2026
- Duration seconds
- 12338
- Processing state
not_requested
Actions
POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/supreme-court-of-canada-hearings-floor-audio-6708170/episodes/sophia-hemmings-by-her-litigation-guardian-rosalie-brown-et-al-v-lloyd-gregory-padmore-et-al-41350/transcription-requests
Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/supreme-court-of-canada-hearings-floor-audio-6708170/sophia-hemmings-by-her-litigation-guardian-rosalie-brown-et-al-v-lloyd-gregory-padmore-et-al-41350.md
Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.
Summary
Sophia Hemmings was left with a severe brain injury after suffering cardiac arrest during a caesarean section at the respondent Scarborough Hospital (hereafter, the “Hospital”).The appellants, Sophia Hemmings, by her Litigation Guardian, Rosalie Brown, Rosalie Brown personally, Samantha Camile Gayle and Moses Hemmings, minors by their Litigation Guardian, Rosalie Brown, and Samantha Hemmings, commenced an action against a number of health care practitioners, alleging that their negligence had caused Sophia’s injuries. The parties agreed on the amount of her damages. The action went to trial, solely on the issue of liability.At trial, Lloyd Gregory Padmore, Dr. Neil Thomas Jamensky, and the Hospital were found liable in negligence. The Court of Appeal allowed appeals brought by Dr. Padmore and the Hospital, and set the judgment as against them aside. The appeal brought by Dr. Jamensky was dismissed. Argued Date 2026-02-10 Keywords Torts – Professional liability – Negligence – Causation – Mother suffering severe brain injury following cardiac arrest during delivery of child by caesarian section – Application of law of causation by Canadian courts – How principles of causation to be applied in the context of women’s healthcare in Canada – What is required to show factual causation and how Courts should engage with counterfactual analyses – What is required to show legal causation and demonstrate meaningful contemplation of applicable testCivil procedure –Trial – Judgments – Reasons for judgment – Appeals – What is the permissible nature and extent of appellate courts’ power to review trial record when assessing sufficiency of reasons that are, on their face, deficient Notes (Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave) Language Floor Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public s…