In Saadati v Moorhead  1 SCR 543, the Supreme Court of Canada has continued the restatement of psychiatric injury law begun in Mustapha v Culligan of Canada Ltd  2 SCR 114 by rejecting the need for damage in the form of recognisable psychiatric illness as a condition of liability. This is a major departure from the law as previously understood in Canada. In contrast, the need for recognisable psychiatric illness is an essential requirement of the law in Australia and England, though not in the United States. This article traces the history of the alternative approach in Canada and notes that deviations from the traditional orthodoxy can be found not only in Canada but also in other jurisdictions. It also explores some other significant aspects of the decision.
|Number of pages||7|
|Journal||Tort Law Review|
|Publication status||Published - Apr 2018|