Dr. Charles Smith Case Summary
Dr. Charles Smith a once highly respected forensic pathologist who was praised for his work, now his reputation has been tarnished and his work has been proven to be a sham. He started his work in 1978 at the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children and was considered to be the leading expert in his field. Dr. Smith’s expert testimony on the cause of death in children lead to numerous criminal convictions. However during a review of 45 autopsies that Dr. Smith performed on children there had been some serious errors found made by the doctor in 20 of those cases. The findings of errors lead to the cases to be reopened which resulted in many overturns of convictions and has led to further inquiries into more cases where Dr. Smith gave expert testimony
…show more content…
Smith for misleading the court with his unjust findings and for the pain and suffering she had endured. However she was dined the right to sue Dr. Charles Smith because of a centuries-old law that protected expert witnesses from lawsuits based on giving their professional opinions in court. Louise Reynolds appealed this decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal “Reynolds' lawyer argued the witness protection rule should not cover a pathologist's investigation which should be seen as separate from testimony.” (CBC News, 2007). As a result of that argument a landmark decision was by “a three-judge Ontario Court of Appeal panel decided Wednesday to allow Louise Reynolds to move forward with her lawsuit against former Toronto pathologist Dr. Charles Smith” (CBC News, 2007) This case set precedent in Canadian law, it opens the door for all other victims of not only Dr. Smith but to any poor souls who have been subjected to like situations. However in 2009 the Ontario government decide to give out settlements to the victim of Charles Smith in the sum of $250,000 to avoid actual civil suits against Mr. Smith “Typically when governments grant compensation, they do so on the condition that victims drop any civil claims.” (Boyle, …show more content…
Charles Smith was finally stripped of his license to practice in 2011 almost ten years after the investigation started. Charles Smith caused a lot of family’s further heartbreak, trauma and ruined lives based on his corrupt findings and should have been punished accordingly. However the punishment he received was quite mediocre and appalling. “The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the governing body for the province's doctors, has stripped the former disgraced pathologist of his certificate to practice, fined him $3,650 in costs, spanked him in the sternest language and summoned him to a formal public dressing-down next month.” (BLATCHFORD, 2012). Based on all the havoc Smith caused by his prejudice findings one would believe that he would receive a much harsher
Smith for misleading the court with his unjust findings and for the pain and suffering she had endured. However she was dined the right to sue Dr. Charles Smith because of a centuries-old law that protected expert witnesses from lawsuits based on giving their professional opinions in court. Louise Reynolds appealed this decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal “Reynolds' lawyer argued the witness protection rule should not cover a pathologist's investigation which should be seen as separate from testimony.” (CBC News, 2007). As a result of that argument a landmark decision was by “a three-judge Ontario Court of Appeal panel decided Wednesday to allow Louise Reynolds to move forward with her lawsuit against former Toronto pathologist Dr. Charles Smith” (CBC News, 2007) This case set precedent in Canadian law, it opens the door for all other victims of not only Dr. Smith but to any poor souls who have been subjected to like situations. However in 2009 the Ontario government decide to give out settlements to the victim of Charles Smith in the sum of $250,000 to avoid actual civil suits against Mr. Smith “Typically when governments grant compensation, they do so on the condition that victims drop any civil claims.” (Boyle, …show more content…
Charles Smith was finally stripped of his license to practice in 2011 almost ten years after the investigation started. Charles Smith caused a lot of family’s further heartbreak, trauma and ruined lives based on his corrupt findings and should have been punished accordingly. However the punishment he received was quite mediocre and appalling. “The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the governing body for the province's doctors, has stripped the former disgraced pathologist of his certificate to practice, fined him $3,650 in costs, spanked him in the sternest language and summoned him to a formal public dressing-down next month.” (BLATCHFORD, 2012). Based on all the havoc Smith caused by his prejudice findings one would believe that he would receive a much harsher