Esther Nwator

The appellant dentist appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $21,687.49 for dental negligence.

The respondent suffered permanent damage to her lip implants during a wisdom tooth extraction.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the appellant breached the standard of care by failing to inform himself on how to handle the implants and breached his duty of informed consent by failing to disclose the material risks of the procedure to the implants.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving parties sought summary judgment dismissing professional negligence claims arising from the prescription and dispensing of Clindamycin for an infected tooth, while the federal defendant moved under Rule 21 to strike a regulatory negligence claim.

The court held that expert evidence was required to establish the standard of care, breach, and causation in the medical and pharmacy negligence claims, and the plaintiff had provided no evidence capable of supporting those claims.

The expert evidence filed by the moving parties established that the prescription, dental treatment recommendations, and pharmacy counselling met the applicable standards of care.

The court further held that Health Canada does not owe a private law duty of care to individual users of approved drugs in the circumstances pleaded.

The motions were granted and the action was dismissed against the moving parties.

The appellant appealed an order striking her statement of claim for professional negligence and medical malpractice against several dental surgeons.

The motion judge found the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the appellant commenced the action nearly five years after the presumptive expiry of the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's own pleadings and correspondence contradicted her argument that she did not discover her claim in 2006, and there was no basis to grant leave to amend a statute-barred claim.

The defendant dentist brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss a negligence action arising from allegedly faulty bridgework as statute barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the material facts underlying the claim by late May or early June 2011, when replacement treatment was recommended, reimbursement was demanded, and a regulatory complaint was threatened.

The plaintiff's later reliance on the professional regulator's decision did not postpone discoverability because knowledge of legal negligence is not required to start the limitation period.

Summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed as out of time.