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

Bill 218: Supporting Ontario’s Recovery Act, 2020

by Valerie Wise October 23, 2020 3 min read

On October 20, 2020, the Ontario government introduced legislation to provide protection from liability for workers, volunteers and organizations who make “good faith efforts” to comply with federal, provincial or municipal law and public health guidance relating to COVID-19.   
Cases to Watch: Marchi v. Nelson

by Mina Karabit September 22, 2020 3 min read

In August 2020, the Supreme Court heard and granted leave to appeal in Marchi v. Nelson, a case from the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision is one to watch as it will likely result in a renewed discussion of the distinction of policy versus operational decisions and their impacts on liability in tort law. The discussion will likely impact many of the anticipated post-COVID-19 lawsuits against public and government institutions.
Judicial Review: New Time Limits and a Helpful Primer

by Mina Karabit September 17, 2020 4 min read

In December 2019, Ontario’s Attorney General introduced Bill 161, the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act (the “Act”), which became law on July 8, 2020. The Act hopes to simplify a complex and outdated justice system by bringing changes to how legal aid services are delivered, how class actions are handled, and how court processes are administered.

Of note, the Act has amended the Judicial Review Procedures Act (JRPA) to establish new rules as to when an application for judicial review may be brought.

Any decisions made on or after July 8, 2020 are now subject to a 30-day limit for bringing an application for judicial review unless another Act provides otherwise. Courts, however, retain powers to extend the time for making an application for judicial review if satisfied that there are apparent grounds for relief and that no prejudice or hardship will be incurred by the delay. Before these amendments, the JRPA did not set out any time limits for bringing an application, but courts had powers to extend the time to bring an application if another Act prescribed the limit.