Skip to content

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.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

New legal publication: Discovery: Atlantic Education & the Law

September 22, 2017

Stewart McKelvey is pleased to announce the creation of Discovery: Atlantic Education and the Law, a publication specifically designed for universities and colleges. We know it is not always easy for institutions in Atlantic Canada…

Read More

Client Update: New Brunswick’s final cannabis report: government operated stores, guidance on growing at home

September 6, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Final Report of the Select Committee on Cannabis was released September 1, 2017. The Committee was appointed by the Legislature of New Brunswick and was mandated to conduct…

Read More

Adoption & access to justice: Judge erred in making “self-directed constitutional reference” in adoption case

August 28, 2017

Jennifer Taylor A child and her adoptive parents “found themselves caught up in a judge-made vortex of uncertainty and delay” when a judge made a “self-directed constitutional reference” instead of issuing an adoption order, prolonging…

Read More

Knowing your limitations: a new NS case on limitation periods

August 17, 2017

Jennifer Taylor Introduction The recent Nova Scotia Supreme Court decision in Dyack v Lincoln is a nice case study on how to work through a limitations issue. It arrives almost two years after the “new”…

Read More

The Latest in Employment Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Good faith expected of employers!

August 16, 2017

Brian G. Johnston, QC While the concept of good faith is not new to employment law, its limits and implications remain uncertain. In a recent decision, Avalon Ford v Evans 2017 NLCA 9, the Newfoundland…

Read More

Client Update: New Nova Scotia temporary solvency relief for defined benefit pension plans

August 10, 2017

Level Chan and Dante Manna On August 9, 2017, the Nova Scotia Superintendent of Pensions announced temporary solvency relief for defined benefit pension plans available effective August 8, 2017. The changes allow pension plan sponsors…

Read More

Client Update: Canada’s infant cannabis industry starting to require a patchwork quilt of governance: updates from Calgary, Edmonton & Nova Scotia

July 28, 2017

Kevin Landry Edmonton wants “Cannabis Lounges”, Nova Scotia Landlords don’t want tenants to smoke marijuana in their rental homes, and Calgary City Council contemplates a private recreational cannabis system. The old adage of “Location. Location.…

Read More

Client Update: Where there’s smoke, there may be coverage: an insurer’s obligation to indemnify for medical cannabis

July 14, 2017

Jon O’Kane and Jamie Watson Legal cannabis will have numerous implications for insurers. The federal Cannabis Act (discussed here), the provincial acts (discussed here) and the regulations (discussed here) are all going to add layers…

Read More

Client Update: Driving high – the future is hazy for Canadian automobile insurers once cannabis goes legal

July 6, 2017

Vasu Sivapalan and Ben Whitney Legalized and regulated cannabis is on track to become a reality in Canada in just under a year (on or before July 1, 2018). This will create a number of…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick – update

June 29, 2017

Further to our Client Update on June 15 titled, “Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick”, the deadline for initial registration under the Lobbyists’ Registration Act of New Brunswick has been extended from…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top