Canada: Is Repetition The Sincerest Form Of Flattery? The Supreme Court’s Decision In Cojocaru V. British Columbia Women’s Hospital And Health Centre


The Supreme Court has rendered its decision in Cojocaru v. British Columbia Women's Hospital and Health Centre, a case concerned with the propriety of judicial adoption verbatim of counsel's submissions in the Court's decision. Beyond the issue of when extensive incorporation of a party's submission into a judicial decision rebuts the presumption of judicial integrity and impartiality, the decision illustrates the difference between judicial writing and other forms of written expression. Unlike academic, artistic or scientific writing, judicial prose is not required, or indeed expected, to be original. All that is required is that the reasons demonstrate that the judge has considered the issues and made an independent assessment of them.


The case of Cojocaru v. British Columbia Women's Hospital arose out of an attempt to deliver a child through "vaginal birth after caesarean section." During labour, the mother experienced uterine rupture, which restricted the infant's oxygen supply. An emergency caesarean section was performed, but the infant had suffered brain damage, which gave rise to cerebral palsy.

At trial, the hospital and three doctors involved in the delivery were found liable in negligence, and damages were awarded. The central issue on appeal was the fact that the trial judge reproduced a large portion of the plaintiffs' submissions in his reasons. While the trial judge did not accept all of the plaintiffs' submissions, the preponderance of verbatim citation, without attribution, from the plaintiffs' factum gave rise to the appeal. Indeed, 321 of the 368 paragraphs of the trial judgment were copied verbatim from the plaintiffs' submissions.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal set aside the trial decision due to the extensive copying of the plaintiffs' submissions. The Court of Appeal stated that the form of the reasons constituted "substantially a recitation of the [plaintiffs'] submissions," which in turn constituted evidence displacing the presumption of judicial integrity and impartiality. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Supreme Court's unanimous opinion was delivered by the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice commenced by stating that judicial decisions benefit from a presumption of judicial integrity and impartiality. To prevail on appeal, the defendants would have to displace the presumption, by demonstrating that "a reasonable person, apprised of the relevant facts, would conclude that the judge failed to come to grips with the issues and deal with them independently and impartially." The presumption of judicial integrity and impartiality is a high one, and can only be rebutted by "cogent" evidence. In the Supreme Court's opinion, the defendants failed to displace the presumption in this case.

Acknowledging that "extensive incorporation" of a party's arguments into the judge's reasons "may raise concerns" that the judge has failed to decide the issues independently and impartially, the Court reiterated that any alleged deficiency must be assessed objectively, through the eyes of a reasonable observer, having regard to all relevant matters:

"The question is whether a reasonable person would conclude that the alleged deficiency, taking into account all relevant circumstances, is evidence that the decision-making process was fundamentally unfair, in the sense that the judge did not put her mind to the facts, the arguments and the issues, and decide them impartially and independently."

The Supreme Court observed that "judicial copying is a longstanding and accepted practice" and "part and parcel of the judicial process," while acknowledging that if "carried to excess" it may "raise problems." Neither failure to attribute sources nor lack of originality, in and of themselves, assist in determining whether the presumption of judicial integrity and impartiality has been displaced. The question is, in each case, whether the judge has put her mind to the issues at hand:

"The fact that a judge attributes copied material to the author tells nothing about whether she put her mind to the issues addressed in that copying


The concern about copying in the judicial context is not that the judge is taking credit for someone else's prose, but rather that it may be evidence that the reasons for judgment do not reflect the judge's thinking."

Applying these principles to the appeal, the Supreme Court found that while the copying was "extensive," it did not indicate that the trial judge failed to engage with the issues and reach an impartial and independent decision on the evidence. The fact that the trial judge did write some original paragraphs and, perhaps more importantly, made findings on certain points contrary to the submissions of the plaintiffs, from whose submissions he copied the majority of his decision, made it "more difficult" to conclude his reasons did not reflect his thinking. The reasons of the judge dealt with all the salient aspects of the case, whether in his own words or in those borrowed from the plaintiffs' submissions. Notably, the Court observed that:

"considerations that require attribution in academic, artistic and scientific spheres do not apply to reasons for judgment. The judge is not expected to be original."

The Court thus allowed the appeal and found that the trial judge's decision was not to be set aside on the ground that it incorporated large parts of the plaintiffs' submissions into his reasons.

The Court, nevertheless, found a number of substantive errors in the trial decision, and reversed the decision on liability concerning all but one defendant. The Supreme Court held that only one of the physicians was liable in negligence. It left the quantum of damages undisturbed.

Significance of the Decision

The decision is significant for addressing the frequently raised concern regarding verbatim repetition of counsel's written submissions in judicial decisions. While the question regarding the appropriate extent of judicial repetition of counsel's submissions comes up with some regularity, Canadian courts, even prior to the Cojocaru decision, have shown acceptance of this practice. Most recently, the Quebec Court of Appeal has thus described its attitude to repetition of counsel's submissions in judicial decisions in Birdair Inc. c. Danny's Construction Company Inc., 2013 QCCA 580) (in translation):

"[59] It must be noted that lawyers generally provide such written arguments in long and complex matters. This demanding work for them is done with the purpose of aiding the judge in his reflection and facilitating his work in difficult cases. We should therefore not reproach him for taking inspiration from them. [...]"

The English Court of Appeal has recently addressed a similar situation in Crinion & Anor v IG Markets Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 587.  The Court of Appeal, while decrying extensive repetition of counsel submissions, which preserved even the headings of the counsel's factum, as "thoroughly bad practice," nevertheless refused to overturn the appeal on that ground.  In the words of Lord Justice Underhill:

"[A] judge will often derive great assistance from counsel's written submissions, and there is nothing inherently wrong in his making extensive use of them, with proper acknowledgement, whether in setting out the facts or in analysing the issues or the applicable legal principles or indeed in the actual dispositive reasoning. But where that occurs the judge should take care to make it clear that he or she has fully considered such contrary submissions as have been made and has brought their own independent judgment to bear. The more extensive the reliance on material supplied by only one party, the greater the risk that the judge will in fact fail to do justice to the other party's case – and in any event that that will appear to have been the case. ... However, to say that the judgment was defective, even seriously so, is not necessarily to say that there has been an injustice which requires the appeal to be allowed."

In Cojocaru, the Supreme Court's decision unequivocally states that repetition, without more, does not displace the presumption of judicial integrity and impartiality. The judges' institutional role is not to be original authors but efficient and impartial decision-makers. Indeed, the judges' heavy workload and the need to adhere to established precedent militate against original writing. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court did not close the door entirely to this ground of appeal in appropriate cases. Therefore, while repetition of counsel's submissions in a judicial decision may be flattering to the counsel being quoted, it is, at best, a mixed blessing, since it creates the risk of a successful appeal.

Case Information

Cojocaru v. British Columbia Women's Hospital and Health Centre, 2013 SCC 30

SCC Docket: 34304

Date of Decision: May 24, 2013

To view original article, please click here

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions