Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute over whether the trial should proceed by judge alone or with a jury, focusing on the complexity of medical and expert evidence.

• Allegations of dental negligence resulting in severe medical complications, including infective endocarditis and multiple strokes.

• Plaintiff’s pre-existing medical conditions and their impact on causation and damages.

• Extensive use of expert witnesses and voluminous medical records expected at trial.

• Procedural arguments regarding timeliness and appropriateness of striking a jury notice.

• Costs awarded to the plaintiff for successfully opposing the defendants’ application.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties

The case involves Kari Tapio Laine, represented by his litigation guardian Robyn Daphne Beattie-Laine, as the plaintiff. The defendants are Dr. Tahereh Riahi, Dr. Tahereh Riahi Corporation, and Dr. G Saini Dental Corporation doing business as Premier Mountains Family Dentistry. The plaintiff discontinued the action against Saini Corp during the proceedings.

Facts of the case

The plaintiff, a 73-year-old man with significant pre-existing health conditions, including a heart valve replacement and hypertension, underwent dental treatment performed by Dr. Riahi on September 27, 2021. After the procedure, the plaintiff developed infective endocarditis and suffered a major stroke followed by several smaller strokes. He alleges these events resulted from Dr. Riahi’s failure to prescribe or advise the use of prophylactic antibiotics, despite being aware of the plaintiff’s medical history and the presence of a medical alert in his file. The plaintiff claims profound and permanent disabilities, including cognitive deficits, paralysis, impaired speech, and blindness. He seeks damages for pain and suffering, special damages, future care costs, and other related losses. The plaintiff also indicated an intention to add a claim for battery based on lack of informed consent.

The defendants deny liability and dispute that any of their actions caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries. Both parties intend to rely on multiple expert witnesses in dentistry, medicine, and care costs, and anticipate the introduction of extensive medical records.

Procedural history and application

The plaintiff filed the notice of civil claim on November 1, 2023. The trial was initially scheduled for November 24, 2025, but was later adjourned to January 5, 2026. The plaintiff filed notices requiring a jury trial, which the defendants sought to strike, arguing that the case’s complexity and volume of evidence made it unsuitable for a jury. The plaintiff opposed this application, maintaining that the issues were not so complex as to preclude a jury trial.

Outcome of the application

The court considered whether the issues required prolonged examination of documents or scientific investigation, or were otherwise of an intricate or complex nature that could not be conveniently handled by a jury. While recognizing the case’s complexity and the large volume of evidence, the court found that these factors did not rise to the level that would justify striking the jury notice. The court concluded that the trial could be fairly and conveniently conducted with a jury, as in other complex personal injury and medical negligence cases. As a result, the application to strike the jury notice was dismissed, and the plaintiff was awarded costs of the application. No damages were awarded at this stage, as the decision was limited to the procedural issue of the mode of trial.