The lawsuit stemmed from a root canal procedure after a motor vehicle accident
The Court of King's Bench of Manitoba has refused to extend the limitation period for filing a malpractice lawsuit against a dentist stemming from a root canal procedure performed in 2019.
Kyle Peters initiated his application under subsection 14(1) of the now-repealed Limitations of Actions Act. The case falls under the purview of s. 44 of the also repealed Dental Association Act, which states that negligence or malpractice actions must be commenced within two years from when the professional services in question ended, and the practitioner was licensed at the time of the alleged malpractice.
Peters, who had sustained various injuries from a motor vehicle accident in April 2019, including damage to his teeth, underwent a root canal by Dr. Maryam Kalvandi, a dentist at the Winnipeg Square Dental Centre.
Most Read
Peters began suspecting issues with the tooth between June and August 2021, which led him to consult Dr. Drew Brueckner in September 2021. Dr. Brueckner diagnosed a crack or perforation in the tooth, attributing it to the root canal performed by Dr. Kalvandi.
The legal dispute centered on when Peters became aware of the material facts crucial for filing a malpractice claim. Peters argued that he only became aware of these facts after consulting Dr. Brueckner in September 2021, which was within the 12 months before his application, satisfying s. 14(1) of the Limitations of Actions Act.
The respondents countered, asserting that Peters was or should have been aware of the issues right after the 2019 procedure, as Dr. Kalvandi's communications and notes indicated. They also argued that the limitation period started with the termination of the patient-dentist relationship in June 2021, an argument the court rejected.
While the Court of King’s Bench agreed with Peters regarding the timing of his knowledge of the material facts, it found that he did not establish a prima facie case against Dr. Kalvandi and Winnipeg Square. The court highlighted the need for expert testimony to substantiate allegations of negligence and breaches of the standard of care.
Despite agreeing that Peters filed his application within an acceptable timeframe based on when he became aware of the material facts, the court determined that the evidence did not meet the necessary threshold to proceed with a malpractice lawsuit. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and awarded costs to the respondents.
