Brampton personal injury lawyers have taken note of a landmark judgment on June 2, 2017, where the Supreme Court of Canada released a unanimous decision that filled a much-felt void in tort law. The court stated that proof of a psychiatric injury is not required to be furnished as a precondition to the award of damages for mental injuries that were caused by negligence.

Previously, it was common for courts to dismiss mental or emotional injury claims caused by negligence if the claimant was unable to demonstrate valid proof of a recognized psychiatric injury. However, this judgment now clearly shows the way. The court ruled that to establish a mental injury caused by negligence, the claimant has to show evidence for a “serious and prolonged disturbance that can be distinguished from normal annoyances, anxieties and fears.”

Saadati vs Moorhead

The case was heard in the Supreme Court after various trials at the Supreme Court of British Columbia (BC) and the BC Court of Appeal.

Mohsen Saadati (Appellant), Grant Iain Moorhead, Able Leasing Ltd and one other (Respondents) and the Insurance Bureau of Canada (Intervener) were the parties.

In the years 2003-9, Saadati was involved in five separate motor-vehicle accidents and suffered injuries. He was declared mentally incompetent in 2010 and has been represented by his litigation guardian. He had experienced chronic pain since the first accident which became aggravated after the third one.

Saadti sued the other parties in negligence, seeking damages for non-pecuniary losses and past income loss that arose from the second accident. Respondent admitted liability for the accident but rejected the claim for damages.

Since Saadati was unable to testify at trial, the trial judge found that the testimony of his friends and relatives was sufficient proof of psychological injury and awarded non-pecuniary damages of $100,000. The claim for physical injury was rejected and the judge did not find that the evidence of his expert psychologist to be enough to establish psychological injury. The BC court of appeal overturned this decision. This decision was later reversed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Criteria for Recovery in Cases of Mental Injury in Negligence

The Supreme Court judge ruled that there are five cumulative criteria which determine the proof of existence of mental injury in negligence:

• Duty of care
• Breach of duty
• Damage
• Legal Causal relationship
• Factual Causal relationship

There is no requirement to prove that a specific, recognizable injury was sustained by the claimant. To establish mental injury, the presence of serious and prolonged disturbances, beyond ordinary annoyances, anxieties and fears is enough. The important factors are symptoms and their effect and not the diagnosis. Proof that the defendant could have foreseen the injury and not the recognizable psychiatric illness is sufficient, ruled the court.

Implications for Accident Victims

In the light of this judgment, Toronto car accident lawyer and Toronto slip and fall injury lawyer can advise you suitably, if you or a dear one has suffered mental injuries in an accident.

This decision will certainly have a huge impact on future cases, since it puts mental and physical injuries on equal footing. Claimants who have sustained mental injuries no longer have to get a diagnosis of a specific injury and can instead demonstrate serious and prolonged disturbances in support of their claim.