June 5, 2017
On June 2, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that where a plaintiff advances a claim for negligently caused psychological or psychiatric injury, it is generally sufficient the pleadings allege some form of such an injury. Pleadings that even suggest an injury of this type might be sufficient. In addition, while to recover, the plaintiff must show the disturbance is serious, prolonged and more than ordinary emotional upset or distress, and expert evidence can assist to prove the claim, proof of a recognized psychiatric illness is not a precondition to recovery.
The Court’s decision in Saadati v. Moorhead arguably lowers the bar plaintiffs must meet to establish a claim for psychological and psychiatric injuries. For insurers, this means:
Be alert for potential claims. A court will likely construe a plaintiff’s pleadings liberally when determining whether they are sufficient to suggest a psychological or psychiatric injury claim. Insurers should, therefore, be mindful of any allegations in the pleadings a court could construe as raising such a claim.
Oppose a psychological injury raised only at trial. Strongly oppose a claim for psychological or psychiatric injury the plaintiff argues at trial but did not previously allege or raise in their pleadings.
The Plaintiff does not require expert evidence but the Defendant might. A plaintiff must show that a psychological or psychiatric disturbance is both prolonged and more than ordinary emotional upset or distress but expert evidence establishing a recognized psychiatric injury is not required. However, even if the plaintiff does not submit expert medical evidence and/or establish a recognized psychiatric injury, a defendant insurer is wise to obtain expert evidence to prove the accident cannot have caused any psychological or psychiatric injury, or at least none known to psychiatry, to refute the claim.
In Saadati v. Moorhead, the plaintiff was involved in a series of five motor vehicle accidents. He commenced an action against the motorists involved for damages for personal injury damages. The trial judge decided the plaintiff had not proven he suffered a physical injury. However, based on the testimony of the plaintiff’s friends and family – not on an identified psychological or psychiatric injury or expert evidence – the judge found that his personality had changed after the accident had established a psychological injury. The insurer appealed. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, deciding damages for mental injury requires a plaintiff to prove, with expert medical opinion evidence, a “recognizable psychiatric illness”. The Court also decided the trial judge erred by deciding the case on a basis the plaintiff neither pleaded nor argued. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada and, in a unanimous decision, succeeded:
Sufficiently broad pleadings and no objection. The broad heads of damages alleged in the plaintiff’s pleadings and his many submissions regarding a “psychological”, “emotional” or “psychiatric” reaction – to which the defendant did not object at trial – were sufficient to put the defendant on notice of the plaintiff’s claim. While courts should not decide cases on grounds not raised, in claims for negligently caused psychological or psychiatric injury it is generally sufficient that the pleadings allege some form of such an injury. Notably, in this case the plaintiff’s allegations did not expressly refer to psychological, psychiatric mental or emotional injury. He claimed, “such further and other injuries as may become apparent through medical reports and examinations, details of which shall be provided as they become known; and the effects or results of the said injuries upon the Plaintiff include headaches, fatigue, dizziness, nausea and sleeplessness.”
Expert evidence is not necessary for recovery. The Court confirmed it had never required a plaintiff to show a recognized psychiatric illness as a precondition to recovery. The Court emphasized that, “just as recovery for physical injury is not, as a matter of law, conditioned upon a claimant adducing expert diagnostic evidence in support, recovery for mental injury does not require proof of a recognizable psychiatric illness”. The recovery for such an injury in negligence law depends on the plaintiff satisfying the criteria applicable to any negligence action: a duty of care, a breach, damage and factual causation between the breach and damage. However, the threshold the Court prescribed in its 2008 decision in Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd. for proving psychological injury – whether the occurrence of psychological harm in a person of ordinary fortitude was the reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s negligent conduct – informs this analysis.
The recovery threshold. To establish a psychological or psychiatric injury, a plaintiff must show the disturbance is serious and prolonged and rises above the ordinary annoyances, anxieties and fears that come with living in civil society. Expert evidence can assist in determining whether an injury has been shown, but is not required. It remains open to a trier of fact to find, on other evidence, the plaintiff has proven on a balance of probabilities that they have suffered a psychological injury. It also remains open to a defendant, in rebutting a claim, to call expert evidence establishing the accident cannot have caused any psychological or psychiatric injury, or at least none known to psychiatry.
Please contact your McInnes Cooper lawyer or any member of the Insurance Defence Team @ McInnes Cooper to discuss this topic or any other legal issue.
McInnes Cooper has prepared this document for information only; it is not intended to be legal advice. You should consult McInnes Cooper about your unique circumstances before acting on this information. McInnes Cooper excludes all liability for anything contained in this document and any use you make of it.
© McInnes Cooper, 2017. All rights reserved. McInnes Cooper owns the copyright in this document. You may reproduce and distribute this document in its entirety as long as you do not alter the form or the content and you give McInnes Cooper credit for it. You must obtain McInnes Cooper’s consent for any other form of reproduction or distribution. Email us at [email protected] to request our consent.
Jun 12, 2023
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court has added a new, lower range for general damages in sexual abuse civil cases. Damages in sex abuse cases are…
Mar 30, 2023
The Alberta Court of Appeal recently sent a strong message to insureds: utmost good faith is not only key but is required in insurance claims.…
Jan 26, 2023
In November 2022, the Ontario Court of Appeal definitively decided an organization whose information systems are breached by a malicious third…
Dec 13, 2022
The insurer’s duty to defend a claim made against its insured is inextricably tied to coverage: there can be no duty to defend without a…
Nov 21, 2022
On November 10, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada examined the interaction of arbitration and bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, deciding a…
Jul 18, 2022
The Supreme Court of Canada’s “Jordan” framework, introducing strict timelines for determining unreasonable delay in the context of…
Apr 18, 2022
On March 28, 2022, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (General Division) decided that in a personal injury case, quantification of…
Mar 31, 2022
On March 18, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that an Indigenous government can still satisfy the impecuniosity requirement for an…
Mar 29, 2022
The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent consideration of estoppel and waiver in the context of a fatal injury case in Trial Lawyers Association…
Feb 8, 2022
We updated this publication on December 15, 2022. On May 17, 2022, the P.E.I. Non-disclosure Agreements Act took effect, significantly…
Feb 3, 2022
On January 26, 2022, the British Columbia Court of Appeal extended an injunction preventing protesters from interfering with a logging…
Dec 16, 2021
We updated this publication on December 21, 2022. The name of the game is to have a plan to mitigate the risk that a data breach will happen…
Nov 23, 2021
On November 19, 2021, in Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada, the Supreme…
Nov 12, 2021
On November 4, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the law regarding when a judgment debtor “carries on business” for the purpose of…
Oct 29, 2021
On October 21, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the law concerning the circumstances in which government organizations - including…
Sep 23, 2021
On September 9, 2021, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal released its decision in Aviva Insurance v. PK Construction Ltd. Dealing with Nova…
Aug 3, 2021
On July 29, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada refined the test for determining when a plaintiff has discovered a claim for the purpose of a…
Mar 1, 2021
The Supreme Court of Canada continues to develop and clarify the organizing principle of good faith performance in contract law. In its 2014…
Jan 18, 2021
The Supreme Court of Canada, in the 2014 case of Bhasin v. Hrynew, recognized a general organizing principle of good faith performance in…
Jul 6, 2020
On June 26, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada released Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, a much-awaited decision regarding the enforceability of…
Jun 11, 2020
New types of claims will emerge while insurers may see an evolution or even decrease in the traditional types. Here are the types of claims and…
May 11, 2020
The Supreme Court of Canada recently released a much-awaited decision regarding the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). The CCAA is…
Apr 17, 2020
The global and domestic spread of COVID-19 has forced Canadians to reassess their upcoming travel plans – and insurers to assess their travel…
Mar 10, 2020
The global COVID-19 (a.k.a. Coronavirus or SARS-CoV-2) outbreak has implications for many commercial relationships, its evolving nature and…
Feb 14, 2020
NOTE: On July 23, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the Newfoundland & Labrador Court of Appeal’s decision respecting the law,…
Jan 14, 2020
On December 23, 2019, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal effectively eliminated the category of “knowledgeable fact witness” in…
Nov 22, 2019
On November 20, 2019, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal confirmed pursuant to section 113BA(1) of Nova Scotia’s Insurance Act, in the context of…
Nov 18, 2019
Effective December 1, 2019, the New Brunswick government will finally finalize the reform of N.B.’s money judgment enforcement regime with the…
Jan 21, 2019
On January 18, 2019, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal rendered its unanimous (5-0) decision in Holland v. Sparks, overturning a motion decision…
Dec 4, 2018
On November 30, 2018, a majority of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada decided the media doesn’t get any special protection from the…
Oct 25, 2018
NOTE: On November 20, 2019, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision and confirmed pursuant to section 113BA(1) of…
Oct 12, 2018
On October 11, 2018, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal released its first decision considering the saving provision in Section 12 of Nova…
Jun 11, 2018
On June 6, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the test for jurisdiction over an allegedly defamatory Internet article – the…
May 11, 2018
On May 8, 2018, for the first time, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court has ruled on the deductibility of Workers’ Compensation Board Extended…
Apr 26, 2018
The N.S. Court of Appeal has reached two decisions ending one employee’s quest for coverage of the costs of his medical marijuana – at least…
Feb 15, 2018
Mandatory interlocutory injunctions - court orders, made in the context of a lawsuit, that a party take positive action as opposed to refrain…
Jan 25, 2018
Insurers have generally been leery of coverage for medical cannabis in both the health benefit claims and in cost of care claims in the personal…
Jan 12, 2018
Whether a provincial court will grant police a “production order” under the Criminal Code of Canada requiring a non-Canadian company to…
Dec 23, 2017
Parents often threaten their children that if their behaviour did not improve they will get a lump of coal in their Christmas stockings. On…
Jul 17, 2017
A corporation does not always sail in calm or safe waters. Cash shortages, unattainable or unmet goals, Board disagreements over the best course…
Jul 10, 2017
The legal landscape of cannabis (a.k.a. marihuana, weed, pot …) is changing, both reflecting - and contributing to - more relaxed attitudes…
Jun 28, 2017
On June 28, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed a Canadian court can issue an interlocutory injunction (an order requiring an entity or…
Jun 23, 2017
On June 23, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that in a contest between the choice of forum clause in Facebook’s online terms of use…
May 3, 2017
On May 2, 2017, the N.S. Court of Appeal decided another case involving the deductibility of CPP disability benefits – but this time, in the…
Apr 6, 2017
Adding a third jurisdiction to Gard Update’s comparison between privilege in the corporate context under U.S. and English law, McInnes Cooper…
Mar 15, 2017
On March 9, 2017, the N.S. Court of Appeal stopped building inspection claims in their tracks when it decided that a defence based section…
Jan 30, 2017
On January 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada decided in Sabean v. Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co. that future CPP disability…
Nov 28, 2016
On November 25, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decided privilege wins again - twice. In two separate decisions - Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance…
Sep 19, 2016
On September 15, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decided certain damage to a building under construction was covered under the relevant…
Aug 17, 2016
The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently affirmed the test for confirming a cause of action and thus resetting a limitation period…
Jul 19, 2016
On July 15, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada, in a long-awaited decision, resisted the invitation to re-write the traditional rules for the…
Jul 5, 2016
The Ontario Court of Appeal has re-ignited the discussion about when a municipality will be held liable for its shoddy bylaw enforcement…
Jun 20, 2016
As of July 1, 2016, packed cargo containers to which the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), Chapter VI, Regulation…
Jun 20, 2016
Real estate vendors and purchasers have high expectations of their realtors – and they don’t often hesitate to pursue legal action against…
Apr 15, 2016
On April 14, 2016, Canada’s federal Justice Minister proposed legislation setting out the conditions that a person wishing to undergo…
Jan 27, 2016
On January 21, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dramatically expanded the scope of legal privacy protection – and the liability…
Jul 29, 2015
On July 27, 2015, the Federal Court of Canada decided a lawsuit by medical marijuana program participants against the Federal Government…
Jul 21, 2015
On July 16, 2015, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal ordered an insurer to produce a significant amount of its financial and business information…
Jun 8, 2015
On June 4, 2015, the NS Court of Appeal decided the value of future CPP disability benefits is deductible under the SEF 44 family protection…
Feb 18, 2015
The new NS Limitations of Actions Act – the legislation that determines the limitation period (time limit) in which a lawsuit must be started…
Feb 9, 2015
NOTE: On April 14, 2016, the federal government proposed legislation setting out the conditions that a person wishing to undergo…
Nov 14, 2014
On November 13, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) effected a significant development in Canadian contract law by recognizing the…
Nov 3, 2014
Note: On November 20, 2014 the NS Government passed the final form of Bill 64, Limitations of Actions Act into law. The final form of the Act…
Sep 9, 2014
Effective October 1, 2014, the New Brunswick Rules of Court will change – some Rules for the first time since they came into effect in 1982.…
May 26, 2014
On May 23, 2014 the Federal Court of Canada decided the Federal Treasury Board Secretariat’s interpretation of the policy for compensating…
May 2, 2014
April showers bring … flood and sewage back-up claims. Flooding and sewage back-up can result in significant damage for municipal ratepayers,…
May 21, 2013
In its April 2013 decision in Re Stan, the Alberta Securities Commission provides issuers with a practical approach to the assessment of both a…
Jan 8, 2013
On November 19, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) unanimously ruled a B.C. public school system’s failure to provide adequate and…
Mar 6, 2009
“Contamination Claims: Long Tails or Just Dogs? Practical and Legal Issues of Litigating Contaminant Slow-Leak Cases”, Cdn Journal of…
Subscribe to McInnes Cooper to stay current with our leading insights on legal updates, trends, news, events, and services.