BC Provincial Court dismisses dental negligence claim over lack of expert evidence

The Provincial Court of British Columbia dismissed a dental negligence claim due to the claimant's failure to provide expert evidence demonstrating a breach of the standard of care.

The dispute in Lacson-Aggarwal v. Sutton, 2024 BCPC 184 involved dental treatment provided by Dr. Kirk Sutton, a certified prosthodontist, who faced claims of substandard care related to crown work performed on the claimant’s teeth.

In the hearing, the defendants argued that a successful claim of professional negligence requires expert evidence demonstrating the standard of care, how it was breached, and the resulting damages. The defendants noted that the claimant had not produced any expert reports or records indicating that Dr. Sutton’s treatment fell below the expected standard of care.

The claimant contended that there was no statutory requirement for expert evidence in negligence cases and argued that the application was res judicata, as a similar dismissal request had been denied in April 2024. However, the court found that the prior decision had only granted an extension to file necessary documents and did not address the current application.

The dispute originated from dental treatment the claimant received in December 2019. During the procedure, the claimant experienced pain and alleged that the crowns placed on her teeth were “short and sub-standard.” She continued to experience discomfort, leading to additional dental consultations and treatments, including the extraction and replacement of a cracked tooth.

Despite these allegations, the Provincial Court noted that the claimant’s records contained no expert evidence indicating that Dr. Sutton’s actions breached the standard of care. In contrast, the defendants presented an expert report stating that the treatment met the expected standard.

The court emphasized that, in negligence claims involving specialized professional care, the plaintiff must provide more than personal dissatisfaction or perceived shortcomings. Without expert evidence supporting the allegations, the court determined that Dr. Sutton could not adequately defend the claim. It ruled that the claimant had not established a prima facie case of negligence. Ultimately, the court dismissed the claim against Dr. Sutton and his associated entities, cancelling the scheduled trial dates.