The appellant appealed the dismissal of her dental negligence action via summary judgment.
She alleged procedural unfairness, insufficient disclosure, and conflicting expert evidence regarding the amount of anesthetic administered and resulting injuries.
The Court of Appeal found no procedural unfairness or reversible errors, affirming the motion judge's use of enhanced fact-finding powers.
The court upheld the preference for the respondent's evidence on anesthetic dosage and lack of causation, and the rejection of the appellant's expert evidence due to admissibility issues.
The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.