{"id":30220,"date":"2018-10-22T21:03:12","date_gmt":"2018-10-22T21:03:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wagners1.wpenginepowered.com\/blog\/saadati-v-moorhead-psychological-damages-claims-the-supreme-court-of-canada-clarifies-legal-treatment-of-and-damages-awarded-for-mental-distress\/"},"modified":"2018-10-22T21:03:12","modified_gmt":"2018-10-22T21:03:12","slug":"saadati-v-moorhead-psychological-damages-claims-the-supreme-court-of-canada-clarifies-legal-treatment-of-and-damages-awarded-for-mental-distress","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wagners.co\/es\/blog\/saadati-v-moorhead-psychological-damages-claims-the-supreme-court-of-canada-clarifies-legal-treatment-of-and-damages-awarded-for-mental-distress\/","title":{"rendered":"Saadati v. Moorhead: Psychological Damages Claims - The Supreme Court of Canada Clarifies Legal Treatment of, and Damages Awarded for Mental Distress"},"content":{"rendered":"\nOn June 2, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada<\/a> released a unanimous decision, Saadati v. Moorhead<\/a><\/em> , 2017 SCC 28<\/a>, finding that a plaintiff claiming damages for mental injury need not prove they have a medically recognized psychiatric or psychological illness or condition to be awarded compensation.\n\n2003 to 2009, Mr. Mohsen Saadati, was involved in five motor vehicle accidents. He sustained various injuries, suffered from chronic pain, and was declared mentally incompetent in 2010. The case dealt with the injuries Mr. Saadati sustained after the second accident, when his truck was hit by a Hummer driven by the respondent, Mr. Moorhead. From that accident, Mr. Saadati sought non-pecuniary damages<\/a> and past wage loss. Mr. Moorhead opposed Mr. Saadati\u2019s claim for damages.\n\nAt trial, the judge found that the testimony of Mr. Saadati\u2019s family and friends was sufficient proof of his psychological injury<\/a>, including cognitive difficulties and personality changes. These lay witnesses testified that after the second accident, Mr. Saadati spoke more slowly, was not \u201ccharming as before,\u201d was a \u201ctotally different person,\u201d was no longer as \u201cactive, happy, cheerful, outgoing, very nice,\u201d treated children differently, had mood swings and complained of \u201chuge headaches.\u201d\n\nThe Court of Appeal overturned this decision on the basis that Mr. Saadati had not demonstrated a medically recognized psychiatric or psychological injury to support the award of non-pecuniary<\/a> damages.\n\nThe Supreme Court of Canada\u2019s judgement restored the $100,000 award for the non-pecuniary damages flowing from Mr. Saadati\u2019s mental injury, suffered as a result of the accident.\n\nThe judgement clarifies what constitutes mental injury and how it may be proved. Importantly, the decision rejects the approach endorsed by lower courts across the country that tort claimants alleging mental injury must prove, with expert evidence, that their injury qualifies as a recognized and diagnosed psychiatric illness or condition. Writing for the Court, Justice Brown states in the judgement:\n\n\u201cThis and other mechanisms by which some courts have historically sought to control recovery for mental injury are, in my respectful view, premised upon dubious perceptions of psychiatry and of mental illness in general, which Canadian tort law should repudiate.\u201d\n\nIn addressing concerns over indeterminate liability and trivial claims, the Court noted that ordinary psychological upset will not be enough. Instead, the claimant is still required to demonstrate a sufficient degree of mental disturbance. To reach this threshold, a claimant must show that:\n