{"id":6125,"date":"2017-10-02T18:23:55","date_gmt":"2017-10-02T18:23:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.niagaralaw.ca\/?p=6125"},"modified":"2023-04-11T15:41:51","modified_gmt":"2023-04-11T15:41:51","slug":"personal-injury-law-and-negligence-undiagnosed-mental-injury","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/niagaralaw.ca\/personal-injury-law-and-negligence-undiagnosed-mental-injury\/","title":{"rendered":"Personal Injury Law and Negligence: Undiagnosed Mental Injury"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>In the recent Supreme Court decision in Saadati v Moorhead <\/a>(Saadati), the Plaintiff suffered a mental injury arising from the third out of five motor vehicle accidents that led to an undiagnosed personality change. Although Plaintiff\u2019s doctors confirmed the mental injury, the Plaintiff never received a formal diagnosis. The Defence did not dispute the accident occurred or the fact the Plaintiff suffered a mental injury. The Defence\u2019s argument was that an undiagnosed mental injury was not compensable at law.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s decision sought to answer a seemingly straightforward legal question: what is a compensable mental injury? The British Columbia Court of Appeal, following a line of precedent, stated that a compensable mental injury is only one that can be diagnosed. In essence, the court will only award Plaintiff damages where an expert physician can pinpoint a plaintiff\u2019s illness from a chart of previously discovered illnesses.<\/p>\n

Before striking down this legal framework, the Supreme Court of Canada undertook an analysis of the historical principles of negligence and mental harm. The Court reiterated the following four-step framework that a Plaintiff must meet before the Court will assess damages for mental harm caused by negligence:<\/p>\n

1. The Defendant owed the Plaintiff a duty of care;
\n2. The Defendant breached the standard of care required;
\n3. The Defendant factually caused the injury; and
\n4. The Plaintiff\u2019s injuries are not too remote from the actions or inactions of the Defendant.<\/p>\n

While the first three criterions are treated similarly whether the Plaintiff alleges a mental or physical injury, the fourth criteria has been receiving significantly more attention within recent mental injury claims.<\/p>\n

In 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada released their decision of Mustapha v Culligan of Canada Ltd.<\/a> (Mustapha). This decision marked a shift in how Courts assess liability in negligence claims where a Plaintiff alleges they have suffered mental harm. The Court held that a Plaintiff must prove on a balance of probabilities that it is foreseeable that a person of ordinary fortitude would suffer a serious injury from the same actions of the Defendant. Even though Mustapha lost the legal battle on the fourth criteria, the Court never acknowledged a formal diagnosis requirement.<\/p>\n

In Saadati<\/a>, the Supreme Court held that to require a formal diagnosis established through expert evidence would unfairly prejudice meritorious claims. Although expert evidence establishing the Plaintiff has suffered a mental injury is an important aspect of the fact-finding process, it has never been a formal requirement in meeting the negligence test. To include such a requirement would make the legal test a question of science, not law.<\/p>\n

At Daniel & Partners, our experienced personal injury<\/a> and insurance law<\/a> experts are well equipped to assist you in all aspects of your dispute resolution and litigation needs. Please call us today.<\/p>\n

Written by Nicholas Baxter<\/a>, articling student.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the recent Supreme Court decision in Saadati v Moorhead (Saadati), the Plaintiff suffered a mental injury arising from the third out of five motor vehicle accidents that led to an undiagnosed personality change. Although Plaintiff\u2019s doctors confirmed the mental injury, the Plaintiff never received a formal diagnosis. The Defence did not dispute the accident […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/niagaralaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6125"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/niagaralaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/niagaralaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/niagaralaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/niagaralaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6125"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/niagaralaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6125\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8194,"href":"https:\/\/niagaralaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6125\/revisions\/8194"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/niagaralaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6125"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/niagaralaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6125"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/niagaralaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6125"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}