Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Nathalie Lachaine claimed $15,000 from ophthalmologist Dr. Michel Podtetenev, alleging he failed to perform the appropriate eye surgery and that her vision deteriorated as a result.
• Before each procedure, she signed a consent document stating that results could not be guaranteed and listing possible complications, including inadequate correction and diminished corrected vision.
• No expert evidence was produced to show that Dr. Podtetenev departed from accepted professional standards or committed a fault.
• After being dissatisfied with the results, Ms. Lachaine refused to return to the clinic for the normal touch-up follow-ups planned after such procedures.
• Her allegation that Dr. Podtetenev shouted at her during the second procedure was denied by him and could not be resolved without a corroborating witness.
• Finding the evidence insufficient to establish fault, the Court dismissed the claim, without legal costs payable to the defendant.

Facts of the case

In 2024, Nathalie Lachaine consulted Dr. Michel Podtetenev, an ophthalmologist, to correct what she presented as presbyopia in both eyes. Dr. Podtetenev testified that he explained he would use the monovision technique: the left eye would be corrected for near vision and the right eye for distance vision. The left-eye procedure took place on March 19 and the right-eye procedure on April 11, and according to his testimony both went normally. Ms. Lachaine paid $4,500 for the procedures. Dr. Podtetenev saw her again in May and then in June for follow-ups, after which communications between the parties deteriorated. Ms. Lachaine left telephone messages at the clinic saying she was experiencing vision problems and requesting a refund of the amount paid. The clinic's receptionist, Julie Guibord, tried to reach her, inviting her to come in for a follow-up and mentioning that she could, if she wished, consult another ophthalmologist at the clinic. Having lost confidence in Dr. Podtetenev, Ms. Lachaine refused to return. In the following months she underwent eye examinations, and in May 2025 an optometrist advised her to obtain corrective lenses for reading. She filed her claim with the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec on June 20, 2025, seeking $15,000.

The consent document at issue

Before each procedure, and after receiving explanations, Ms. Lachaine signed a document in the presence of Ms. Guibord. It stated that, as with any surgery, results could not be guaranteed, and it listed possible complications including infection, inflammation, folds or tears in the corneal flap, glare, halos, dry eyes, corneal opacity, inadequate correction, diminished corrected vision, corneal ectasia, chronic painful neuropathy and, very rarely, blindness. The document also stated that the list of complications was not exhaustive, that there was no guarantee of perfect vision or of never needing glasses, and that wearing glasses might be necessary to obtain better vision.

The court's reasoning and analysis

Judge Luc Huppé noted that Ms. Lachaine produced no expert evidence to show that Dr. Podtetenev had not followed accepted professional standards or had committed a fault toward her. Given his specialized knowledge, Dr. Podtetenev was best placed to determine the type of procedure required by her condition, and no evidence was presented that a prudent and competent ophthalmologist would have acted differently. The court also observed that, after finding the procedures did not give the result she expected, Ms. Lachaine refused to return so that the normal touch-ups planned after such procedures could be performed. While it was regrettable that the procedures did not satisfy her, in the absence of proof that Dr. Podtetenev failed to meet professional standards, her dissatisfaction did not entitle her to a refund of the amounts paid or to compensation for the harm she believed she suffered from the worsening of her vision. As for her testimony that Dr. Podtetenev shouted at her during the second procedure, which he denied, the court could not determine what happened without a corroborating witness.

Ruling and outcome

Concluding that the evidence was insufficient to establish fault on the part of Dr. Podtetenev, the court found Ms. Lachaine's claim to be unfounded and dismissed it. Dr. Podtetenev was therefore the successful party, though no monetary amount was awarded in his favour: considering the circumstances, the court dismissed the claim without requiring Ms. Lachaine to reimburse any legal costs, so the judgment was rendered entirely without costs.