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

Mature Minors and COVID-19 Vaccination

by Valerie Wise May 21, 2022 4 min read

The Court confirms that youth who understand the information relevant to making a decision about whether to receive the COVID-19 vaccine are capable of providing consent, and do not require parental consent for vaccination.
Pharmacists will be able to Prescribe Medications for Minor Ailments in the New Year

by Mina Karabit May 17, 2022 2 min read

In January 2023, Ontario pharmacists will be able to prescribe medications for a specific list of minor ailments
Seeking Early Judicial Review of ICRC Decisions
Seeking Early Judicial Review of ICRC Decisions

by Victoria Tremblett May 09, 2022 4 min read

Applications for judicial review of College decisions should only be brought after the conclusion of all administrative proceedings, and after all administrative remedies have been exhausted.