Proving Damages For Mental Injury: Guidance From The Supreme Court Of Canada

The recent decision of Saadati v. Moorhead1 raises the question of whether recovery for a mental injury requires expert medical opinion of a "recognized psychiatric illness".

Background

In Saadati v. Moorhead, the plaintiff Saadati was driving a tractor truck that was struck by a vehicle being operated by the defendant Moorhead. At trial, the defendant Moorhead admitted liability for the collision, but argued that the plaintiff Saadati suffered no damage. The plaintiff Saadati alleged both physical and mental injury. The trial judge concluded that Saadati did not suffer from physical injury as a result of the accident. However, the trial judge awarded him $100,000 for non-pecuniary damages for mental injury based not on expert evidence or an identified medical cause, but on the testimony of family and friends of Saadati to the effect that his personality had changed for the worse since the accident.

The Defendant Moorhead appealed. The British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge's decision, holding that recovery for mental injury requires a claimant to prove, with expert medical opinion evidence, a "recognized psychiatric illness".

The Decision

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that proof of mental injury was to be treated the same as proof of physical injury. That is, by satisfying the standard elements of the cause of action for negligence, as set out in Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd2. The court rejected arguments that a recognized psychiatric illness requirement was necessary because of special concerns related to mental injuries such as the subjective nature of the symptoms, indeterminate liability, and feigned or exaggerated claims. It held that such arguments were founded upon: "... dubious perceptions of, and postures towards, psychiatry and mental illness in general".3

In rejecting the need for proof of a recognized psychiatric illness, the court held that the Mustapha test provided sufficient protections against the potential of unworthy claims for mental injury:

"None of this is to suggest that mental injury is always as readily demonstrable as physical injury. While allegations of injury to muscular tissue may sometimes pose challenges to triers of fact, many physical conditions such as lacerations and broken bones are objectively verifiable. Mental injury, however, will often not be as readily apparent. Further, and as Mustapha makes clear, mental injury is not proven by the existence of mere psychological...