Client Update: Mental injury? Expert diagnosis not required
On June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish mental injury. Neither expert evidence nor a diagnosed psychiatric illness is required.
The plaintiff, Mr. Saadati, had been involved in five motor vehicle accidents between January 2003 and March 2009. He suffered chronic pain after the first accident, which was aggravated by the third accident. The defendant, Mr. Moorhead, was responsible for the second accident. Liability was admitted for the accident, but it was argued that the plaintiff suffered no damage.
Much of the expert evidence offered in support of the plaintiff’s claim that he suffered injury from the accident was ruled inadmissible at trial. However, the testimony of friends and family regarding mood swings and behaviour changes convinced the trial judge that the accident had caused “psychological injuries, including personality change and cognitive difficulties”; $100,000 was awarded for non-pecuniary damages.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal overturned the trial decision, finding that it was an error to award damages for mental injury in the absence of a medically recognized condition established by expert evidence. The appeal court also found that the issue of mental injury had not been sufficiently pleaded or argued thereby depriving the defendant of the opportunity to fully defend those allegations.
In its unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of Canada restored the decision at trial, holding that proof of a “recognizable psychiatric illness” is not required to establish mental injury. The Court rejects as “inherently suspect” the practice of relying on diagnostic manuals or criteria to limit the scope of successful mental injury claims. Judges are to be concerned with the nature of the symptoms experienced and their effects, not the diagnosis or label for those symptoms.
Although expert evidence is not required to prove mental injury, it can assist in determining whether mental injury has been established and, if so, the cause of that injury. “Mental injury” means more than merely “psychological upset”; plaintiffs must establish that the disturbance from which they suffer is serious, prolonged and rises above “the ordinary annoyances, anxieties and fears that come with living in civil society”.
The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that recovery for mental injury must meet the threshold set out by the Court in Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., that is “whether the occurrence of mental harm in a person of ordinary fortitude was the reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s negligence”; if not, the plaintiff’s claim for compensation will be denied.
What this means for insurers
Expert evidence remains important. Expertise can assist with determining the cause of the alleged injury, whether the injury was rare (perhaps not forseeable), treatment for the symptoms experienced and the future outcome following treatment.
Focus on the symptoms. The symptoms experienced and their effect on the individual are key, not the diagnosis. A claimant may not need to specify the precise type of injury for which they are seeking compensation. In Saadati, the plaintiff was awarded compensation despite failure to more specifically plead mental injury in the statement of claim. Injured persons will be entitled to compensation for both physical injury and mental injury if the nature and extent of symptoms meets the threshold from Mustapha.
Archive
Kevin Landry and Annelise Harnanan (summer student) In April 2021, the federal government introduced the draft Retail Payments Activities Act (“RPAA”) as part of Bill C-30, the Act to implement the 2021 federal budget. Under…
Read MoreChristopher Marr, TEP and Level Chan with the assistance of Annelise Harnanan (summer student) On May 20, 2021, the New Brunswick Financial and Consumer Services Commission (“FCNB”) released a revised version of one of its…
Read MoreJennifer Taylor and Bhreagh Ross The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has overturned a decision that found a Charter right to testamentary freedom. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v Lawen Estate¹ involved an appeal by…
Read MoreWe are pleased to introduce our new labour and employment podcast, Workplace Issues in Atlantic Canada: A Legal Perspective. In this series, our labour and employment lawyers across the region will discuss hot topics affecting…
Read MoreRick Dunlop and William Wojcik On May 12th, 2021, the Government of Nova Scotia announced in a news release that it is implementing a COVID-19 Paid Sick Leave Program (“Program”) to support workers who must…
Read MoreBrendan Sheridan As Canada begins its economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, immigration is playing an important role. While much of the focus has been on increasing the skilled workforce to fill gaps in the…
Read MoreBrian Johnston, QC, Killian McParland and Bhreagh Ross On April 6, 2021, Stewart McKelvey was advised by the Federal Labour Program that the Labour Program’s Forward Regulatory Plan 2021–23 (“Plan”) is now available and includes details and timing on 21…
Read MoreMark Tector and Bhreagh Ross With vaccine rollout well underway across the country, employers should be aware of legislative changes that entitle employees to paid or unpaid time-off to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Here are…
Read MoreJennifer Taylor and Bhreagh Ross In the recent Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (“GGPPA Reference”), the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously agreed that climate change is real and dangerous.…
Read MoreWe are pleased to present the fifth installment of Beyond the border, a publication aimed at providing the latest information to clients about new programs and other immigration-related information that may be pertinent to employers of…
Read More