Chelli-Greco v. Rizk includes a solid section 5(1)(a)(iv) discovery analysis (which appear in limitations jurisprudence quite infrequently). Justice Hackland held that it did not become legally appropriate for the plaintiff to discover her claim against her dentist until their dentist-patient relationship ended:
[19] In my view the present case is an equally compelling situation to support the proposition that the plaintiff’s action was not discovered until the dentist-patient relationship had ended. It could not fairly be said that the plaintiff should have considered it appropriate to commence proceedings against her dentist while he was attempting to remediate her dental problems which she was given to understand arose from the poor health of her teeth which supported her bridge. As the plaintiff’s expert pointed out, a major problem for the plaintiff was the lack of an informed consent discussion surrounding the treatment she was receiving. She remained under the defendant’s influence and professional guidance, without proper advice, for the duration of the dentist-patient relationship. In these circumstances, I cannot be satisfied that it was appropriate for the plaintiff to opt for legal proceedings instead of seeking remediation by continuing to seek treatment form the defendant.
The situation that was equally compelling was that in Brown v. Baum, an excellent decision from Justice Mew that I wrote about here.
UPDATE: The Court of Appeal has upheld this decision.
