by Written on behalf of Wise Health Law July 11, 2017 2 min read

In Saadati v. Moorhead, a unanimous decision released this past June, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) clarified what is required to prove a mental injury in tort (i.e. civil wrong) cases. In short, the SCC confirmed that there is no requirement to demonstrate a “recognized psychiatric illness” in order to obtain damages for mental injury caused by negligence. Instead, it is sufficient to provide evidence of a “serious and prolonged disturbance that rises above ordinary annoyances, anxieties and fears” in order to establish mental injury. What Happened? Between 2003 and 2009, the appellant (Mr. Saadati), a truck driver, was involved in five motor vehicle accidents and sustained a number of injuries. Mr. Saadati alleged that the second accident (which occurred in 2005) caused mental injuries for which he sought non-pecuniary damages and remuneration for wage losses from being unable to work for two years following the accident. The respondent (Mr. Moorhead) admitted his liability, but opposed Mr. Saadati’s claim for damages. Lower Court Decisions At trial, the trial judge concluded that “although the particular medical cause of the psychological injury is not known” the testimony from Mr. Saadati’s friends and family about a change in his behavior following the accident was sufficient to establish psychological injuries including “personality change” and cognitive difficulties such as slowed speech”. Mr. Saadati was awarded $100,000 for non-pecuniary damages. The original trial decision was later overturned by the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which found that Mr. Saadati had not demonstrated a medically recognized psychiatric or psychological injury, and that “absent expert medical opinion evidence, a judge is not qualified to say what is, or is not, an illness”. The Supreme Court’s Decision The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision, and restored the decision of the original trial judge, stating that “a finding of legally compensable mental injury need not rest, in whole or in part, on the claimant proving a recognized psychiatric illness”. All that is required to prove a mental injury is “a serious and prolonged disturbance that rises above ordinary annoyances, anxieties and fears.” The Court emphasized that the most important factors are the symptoms suffered by the person making the claim (i.e. the plaintiff), and the effect of those symptoms, not the diagnosis. Furthermore, all that is required to show that the defendant caused the mental injury is proof that he or she could have foreseen the injury. The mental injury is open to rebuttal by expert evidence brought by defendant. What Will This Mean Going Forward? Prior to this decision, individuals with mental injuries had to prove they were suffering from a medically recognized psychiatric injury. Now, a victim claiming mental injury can be awarded damages even if there is no diagnosis of a specific mental illness caused by someone else’s negligence. At Wise Health Law, we have significant experience and expertise assisting health professionals in the civil and regulatory contexts. For the convenience of our clients, we have offices in both Toronto and Oakville, Ontario, and are easily accessible. Contact us online, or at 416-915-4234 for a consultation.


Also in Blog

The Interaction between College Proceedings and Limitation Periods

by Rozmin Mediratta April 02, 2020 3 min read

Earlier this year, Wise Health Law succeeded on a motion for summary judgment in a dental malpractice case on the basis that the limitation period had expired before the Statement of Claim was issued. The (unreported) decision was delivered orally on the day of the motion. 

In part, the plaintiff argued that she did not discover her claim until the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (the “RCDSO” or “College”) rendered its decision, as she did not know if the defendant was negligent when she complained to the RCDSO, but merely had a “suspicion”. 

Ontario Gives Statutory Tribunals Discretion to Conduct Proceedings Electronically Amid COVID-19

by Rozmin Mediratta March 30, 2020 2 min read

In the midst of COVID-19, the proceedings of many health colleges, and consequently of the health professionals they regulate, have been in limbo while everyone finds a way forward. 

On March 25, 2020, the Ontario government enacted the Hearings in Tribunal Proceedings (Temporary Measures) Act, 2020 (the “Act”) to help the process along.

The Act empowers statutory tribunals with more discretion over how proceedings before them are held.

Chiropractors: Considerations in Providing “Emergency Care”

by Valerie Wise March 25, 2020 2 min read

Effective 11:59 p.m. on March 24, 2020, the Ontario government ordered the closure of “non-essential” workplaces.  The list of “essential” workplaces included “health care professionals providing emergency care including dentists, optometrists and physiotherapists”.

The College of Chiropractors of Ontario (“CCO”) interprets this list as including chiropractors, and we agree.

So the question becomes – what is “emergency care”?