Supreme Court Of Canada Finds Psychological Injury To Be Too Remote

The Supreme Court of Canada recently rendered its decision in Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd.  In this case, the plaintiff sued Culligan alleging that he had suffered psychological injury when he found a dead fly in a bottle of water.  He claimed to have suffered from a major depressive disorder, phobia and anxiety because of the “revolting implications” on the health of his family.  At trial, he was awarded $341,774.58 in general damages, special damages, and damages for loss of business.  The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned this award stating that the injury was not reasonably foreseeable and, therefore, the plaintiff did not have a cause of action. 

At the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court found that the psychological injuries were too remote for the plaintiff to recover damages.  The test applied was whether the injuries suffered by the plaintiff would be injuries that a person of “ordinary fortitude” would suffer.  The Court stated (at para. 15) that “unusual or extreme reactions to events caused by negligence are imaginable but not reasonably foreseeable”.  In the end, the plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed on the basis that the damages were too remote.

The full text of the Supreme Court of Canada decision is available at:
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2008/2008scc27/2008scc27.html

For more information on this topic contact Pushor Mitchell associate Una Florko at (250) 869-1230 or florko@pushormitchell.com