In what circumstances will a judge grant summary judgment in a dental malpractice action against a group of dentists?

For example, Sanzone v. Schecter, supra, involved a medical malpractice action against a group of dental surgeons. When the defendant dentists moved for summary judgment, neither side had presented evidence addressing the question of whether the defendants had breached the applicable standard of care. At trial, the plaintiff would bear the burden of proof on this issue. However, Brown J.A. held that the defendants’ still bore the burden on their summary judgment motion, explaining (at paras. 32-33): In the present case, given the absence of evidence from the moving party dentists in support of their defence, the motion judge should have addressed the threshold question of whether the respondents had discharged their evidentiary obligation as moving parties under rule 20 to put their best foot forward by adducing evidence on the merits. In my respectful view, the motion judge erred in failing to address that question. If the respondent dentists had filed evidence dealing with the merits of their defence in support of their summary judgment motion, it would have been open to the motion judge to treat the appellant’s failure to deliver a compliant expert’s report as a basis to dismiss her action. In light of the respondents’ failure to file any such evidence, it was not open to the motion judge to grant summary judgment. He erred in so doing.