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

Health Care Professionals in Ontario Begin the Restart

by Valerie Wise May 28, 2020 3 min read

The Chief Medical Officer of Health for Ontario has issued an updated Directive #2 (dated May 26, 2020) for Regulated Health Professionals in the province. 

Pursuant to the updated Directive #2, all deferred non-essential and elective services by health care providers may be gradually restarted – subject to the rest of the requirements set out in the Directive.

The updated Directive #2 does not provide particularly detailed guidance to health professionals on how to proceed, likely because it applies to such a broad spectrum of health care and health professionals. It does, however, provide some principles to assist health care providers in making decisions as we enter this transitional period.

International Medical Graduates Reinforcing the Healthcare Frontlines

by Mina Karabit May 25, 2020 2 min read

In addition to the mask and hand sanitizer shortages, Ontario’s response to COVID-19 highlights the need for more frontline health care workers. Each regulated health profession’s college responded differently, and we have discussed some of those changes in other posts to keep you apprised.

Today, we focus on the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), who set out to increase the number of available and licenced physicians out on the frontlines through certificates of registration that authorize supervised practice of short duration. The temporary licences authorize practice for 30 days.  

Pharmacists’ Time-Limited Change in Scope of Practice During COVID-19

by Mina Karabit May 05, 2020 4 min read

Undoubtedly, COVID-19 has affected how health professionals practice. Pharmacists across the country are not only experiencing changes in how they practice (for example, accepting emailed prescriptions, where appropriate) but the scope of their practice as well. The latter change is not permanent, although the disruptions in practice may be felt long after the COVID-19 emergency subsides.

On March 19, 2020, Health Canada issued a short-term section 56(1) exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) that would authorize pharmacists to prescribe, sell, or provide controlled substances in limited circumstances, or transfer prescriptions for controlled substances (the CDSA Exemption).