Ang v. Lin

Ang v. Lin

The motion judge correctly applied summary judgment law and r.20.04(2.1), found the respondent's uncontroverted evidence that 3.6 mL (two cartridges) of anesthetic was administered and accepted expert Katchky's opinion that this dose was below recommended levels and could not have caused the alleged injuries; the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2024 ONCA 549
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Sharon Shyh Ang; Defendant (respondent): Simon Lin
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Summary Judgment Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Expert Evidence, Standard of Care, Disclosure, Costs
Source Language
english
Medical Negligence Dental Negligence Civil Procedure Tort Law Summary Judgment Expert Evidence Standard of Care Disclosure +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sharon Shyh Ang

Plaintiff (appellant)

Simon Lin

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Summary Judgment Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge erred in granting summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether procedural unfairness occurred by denying examination of respondent or expert and by alleged non‑disclosure of anesthetic amount
  3. 3 Whether there was a genuine issue of fact concerning the amount of anesthetic administered and causation of alleged injuries

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge correctly applied summary judgment law and r.20.04(2.1), found the respondent's uncontroverted evidence that 3.6 mL (two cartridges) of anesthetic was administered and accepted expert Katchky's opinion that this dose was below recommended levels and could not have caused the alleged injuries; the appellant did not discharge her burden to prove causation and the judge properly rejected the appellant's expert as inadmissible; therefore there was no genuine issue for trial and summary judgment was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Respondent awarded partial indemnity costs of the appeal from the appellant in the all‑inclusive amount of $8,000 (CAD)