• Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Pacific Medical Law

A founding member of BILA

Law, Justice And Compassion | Call Today

1-604-685-2361

  • Home
  • Team
  • Injuries
    • Birth Injury
    • Brain Injury
    • Cerebral Palsy
    • Infant & Child Injuries
    • Spinal Cord Injuries
  • Janna Epp Bursary
  • Cases Won
  • Publications
  • Blog
  • For Lawyers
  • Contact
  • Home
  • Team
  • Injuries
    • Birth Injury
    • Brain Injury
    • Cerebral Palsy
    • Infant & Child Injuries
    • Spinal Cord Injuries
  • Janna Epp Bursary
  • Cases Won
  • Publications
  • Blog
  • For Lawyers
  • Contact
Call
Contact
Blog
Mental Injuries – The Mustapha Framework

Mental Injuries – The Mustapha Framework

By Andrea Donaldson | Tuesday, July 24, 2018

Mustapha v. Culli-gan, 2008 SCC 27 involved a claim for mental injury after the plaintiff found a dead fly in a bottle of water supplied by the defendant, leading to depression, phobia and anxiety. In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada set out the framework for establishing a claim for mental injury:

  1. DID THE DEFENDANT OWE THE PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE?

This first question focuses on the relationship between the parties. The defendant only owes a duty of care to those whom the defendant may reasonably fore-see as being adversely affected by his/her failure to take care. Often, the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant is of a type which has already been recognized as giving rise to a duty of care, such as in the case of a doc-tor and patient, or a manufacturer and consumer. In these cases, it is unnecessary to undertake a full-fledged duty of care analysis.

  1. DID THE DEFENDANT’S BE-HAVIOUR BREACH THE STAN-DARD OF CARE? 

A defendant breaches the standard of care if his or her conduct creates an unreasonable risk of harm.

  1. DID THE PLAINTIFF SUSTAIN DAMAGE?

A plaintiff who sustained injury – including psychological injury – will be found to have suffered damage.

In Mustapha, the court noted that the distinction between mental and physical injury is arguably artificial in the context of tort. The court did not purport to define compensable injury exhaustively, but said that it must be serious and prolonged, and rise above ordinary annoyances, anxieties, and fears. Minor and transient upsets do not amount to damage.

  1. WAS THE PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT’S BREACH? 

The final question is whether the defendant’s breach caused the plaintiff’s harm in fact and in law. In Mustapha, it was not in issue that the defendant’s breach of the duty of care caused the plaintiff’s psychiatric injury in fact. However, the plaintiff ultimately failed to prove causation in law, with the court determining that the plaintiff’s damage was too remote to warrant recovery. Unusual or extreme re-actions to events caused by negligence may be imaginable, but are not reasonably foreseeable. Once a plaintiff establishes that mental injury would foreseeably occur in a person of ordinary fortitude, the defendant must take the plaintiff as he finds him for the purposes of damages.

IS A MEDICALLY RECOGNIZED PSYCHIATRIC INJURY NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH A CLAIM FOR MENTAL INJURY?

The  existence  of  a  recognizable psychiatric injury was not in issue in Mustapha, as it was clear that the plaintiff had suffered a major depressive disorder with associated  debilitating phobias  and  anxiety.

Recently, in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the BC Court of Appeal’s decision which stated that a recognized psychiatric injury was a necessary precondition to a mental injury claim, ruling that plaintiffs must only show evidence of a serious and prolonged disturbance, as set out in Mustapha. As expert diagnostic evidence is not necessary for recovery for physical injury, the court in Saadati sought to put mental and physical injuries on equal footing, so not to perpetuate a view of mental illness as unworthy of equal protection under the law. The court concluded that the elements of the cause of action for negligence together with the threshold for mental injury as stated in Mustapha, furnish sufficiently robust protections against unworthy claims.

This piece was originally posted in BarTalk. You can also read the PDF from our Publications page. 

Share on:
  • Tweet

Posted under: Adult Injuries, Legal News

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Categories

  • Accessibility (18)
  • Adult Injuries (21)
  • Cerebral Palsy (61)
  • Cerebral Palsy Association of BC (25)
  • Community Involvement (27)
  • Firm News (55)
  • Health News (67)
  • Legal News (24)
  • Medical Malpractice (30)
  • People with Disabilities (23)
  • The Verdict – Law Journal (5)
  • Understanding Birth Injuries (1)

Archives

  • March 2021 (2)
  • February 2021 (3)
  • December 2020 (1)
  • September 2020 (4)
  • August 2020 (4)
  • June 2020 (1)
  • May 2020 (2)
  • April 2020 (5)
  • March 2020 (1)
  • February 2020 (3)
  • January 2020 (4)
  • December 2019 (3)
  • October 2019 (3)
  • September 2019 (1)
  • August 2019 (3)
  • July 2019 (1)
  • June 2019 (3)
  • May 2019 (2)
  • March 2019 (2)
  • February 2019 (2)
  • January 2019 (5)
  • December 2018 (3)
  • November 2018 (3)
  • October 2018 (4)
  • September 2018 (2)
  • August 2018 (8)
  • July 2018 (8)
  • June 2018 (1)
  • April 2018 (24)
  • March 2018 (1)
  • February 2018 (4)
  • January 2018 (2)
  • July 2017 (1)
  • June 2017 (1)
  • May 2017 (1)
  • April 2017 (1)
  • March 2017 (2)
  • December 2016 (1)
  • September 2016 (1)
  • July 2016 (1)
  • June 2016 (2)
  • May 2016 (4)
  • April 2016 (1)
  • March 2016 (4)
  • February 2016 (1)
  • January 2016 (1)
  • November 2015 (1)
  • September 2015 (1)
  • August 2015 (1)
  • July 2015 (1)
  • June 2015 (3)
  • March 2015 (1)
  • February 2015 (1)
  • January 2015 (1)
  • November 2014 (1)
  • May 2014 (2)
  • December 2013 (2)
  • November 2013 (1)
  • October 2013 (3)
  • September 2013 (5)
  • August 2013 (2)
  • July 2013 (1)
  • June 2013 (7)

Recent Posts

  • Causation – Basic Principles
  • Defenses to a Medical Malpractice Claim – Navigating the Minefield
  • The Standard of Care
  • JAUNDICE

How Can We Help You?

Contact Us

Footer

Our Office Location

Pacific Medical Law 401 W. Georgia Street Suite 905 B Vancouver, BC V6B 5A1
Toll Free: 604-685-2361 Phone: 604-685-2361 Map & Directions

Copyright © 2021 Sitemap