A wilfully false statement that comes to and causes mental anguish to another. Perhaps, the Court was suggesting that the tort is applicable to deal with non workplace harassment, since this is already addressed through existing torts (intentional infliction of mental suffering) and employment legislation, including minimum employment standards, workplace health and safety legislation, and human rights legislation. Therefore the discussion below focuses on what is required to establish the tort of an intentional infliction of mental suffering. results in a visible and provable illness. Please note that we do not offer contingency retainers. In the appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that three elements comprise the tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering: Following its earlier decisions in Prinzo v Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care and Piresferreira v Ayotte, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the first and third element are objective, while the second is subjective. Where it is available it requires the following: At Milosevic Fiske LLP, our team of Toronto corporate commercial lawyers regularly represent clients in complex commercial litigation matters ranging from straightforward contract and partnership disputes to complex multi-party commercial claims including dealing with claims of oppression. The ONCA created the test for establishing this tort in Prinzo v. Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Caresuch that to make out the tort a plaintiff must prove conduct of the defendant that is: 1. flagrant and outrageous; 2. calculated to produce harm, and which; 3. results in a visible and provable illness. The plaintiff sued the Crown and certain individual RCMP members. Danicic was willing to entertain a damages claim for harassment, more specifically in the form of the tort of “intentional infliction of mental suffering and emotional distress.” In order to prove such a tort, the following three elements must be present (as has been established in an earlier decision called Prinzo v. The Court distinguished the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress from recovery for psychological injury in a negligence action.  While reasonable foreseeability may suffice for a negligence tort [Mustapha v Culligan of Canada Ltd.], it is not enough to ground an intentional tort. We represent clients in complex commercial litigation matters, from contract and partnership disputes, to complex multi-party commercial claims. The manager was ordered to pay $100,000 for intentional infliction of mental suffering and $150,000 in punitive damages. In Colistro v Tbaytel, 2019 ONCA 197, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently dismissed an appeal and cross-appeal in an employment dispute. In regards to the tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering, the court found that although this tort is available in the employment context, the claim was not made out on the evidence and the trial judge’s findings were overturned. While reasonable foreseeability may suffice for a negligence tort [ Mustapha v Culligan of Canada Ltd. ], it is not enough to ground an intentional tort. As was recently stated by the ONCA in Colistro v. Tbaytel: The requirement that the defendant must have intended to produce the harm that occurred, or known that the harm was substantially certain to follow as a result of his or her conduct, is an essential limiting element of the tort and distinguishes it from actions in negligence. intentional infliction of mental suffering by Ayotte had been made out. One criterion of the Prinzo test is that, “the flagrant or outrageous conduct” must be “ calculated to produce harm. However, in Piresferreira, this court held, at paras. The elements required to establish IIMS were confirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Boucher v Wal-Mart Canada Corp., 2014 ONCA 419 at para 41, and require the Plaintiff to prove that: It is enough to establish the more general intention of a serious psychological injury but not the specific condition that occurred. In the workplace, this can take the form of harassment, bullying, and/or violence (including verbal threats). The more intense the mental anguish, the better chance you have of proving that your emotional distress was severe enough to deserve compensation. Following the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Potter, the Court of Appeal clarified that constructive dismissal may arise in two ways: Although the Supreme Court of Canada explained in Potter that the second approach requires “the cumulative effect of past acts” to be considered, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a single act may constitute constructive dismissal under the second approach.  The Court of Appeal explained that its holding is in line with the emphasis in Potter on the flexible approach of the second approach. Required fields are marked *, I agree the Terms of Use on the Contact page. The Court held that the second element requires the plaintiff to prove that “the defendant must have intended to produce the kind of harm that occurred or have known that it was almost certain to occur” [Boucher v Wal-Mart Canada Corp.].  It is insufficient to show only that the defendant ought to have known that harm would occur. It will be interesting to follow both torts in the future to see if they stay distinct or slowly merge together. Related Terms: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Privacy Policy / Disclaimer. Your email address will not be published. The elements required to establish IIMS were confirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Boucher v Wal-Mart Canada Corp., 2014 ONCA 419 at para 41, and require the Plaintiff to prove that: Emotional distress happens when a person struggles with mental anguish or pain and suffering after a traumatic event. Over the years, our team of exceptional litigators has seen it all and has successfully fought for our clients’ rights. Therefore it is not enough to demonstrate that the defendant ought to have known (foreseeability or recklessness) that harm would occur but rather an intention to produce the kind of harm that resulted or to have known that it was almost certain to occur. The ONCA decided that the tort does not currently exist in the common law of Ontario. Intentional Infliction of Mental Suffering. It is the second (2) test above that is the most difficult to prove, being a subjective requirement. Prinzo v Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care, Stamos v Annuity Research & Marketing Services, Intentional Infliction of Mental Suffering, Request for International Judicial Assistance, Insurance, Reinsurance and Defense Litigation. The ONCA clarified the subjective element but stating that it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to produce the specific psychiatric illness which resulted or to have known it was substantially certain to follow. In June 2007, he brought an action against the RCMP and several individual members of the RCMP (the individual claims were later discontinued) seeking damages for intentional infliction of mental suffering due to alleged managerial bullying and harassment. All rights reserved. Find out if you can sue for emotional distress in Florida and what a personal injury lawyer can do for you. The three-part test used to establish intentional infliction of mental suffering consists of i) flagrant or outrageous conduct, ii) with the intention of causing harm, iii) which results in a visible or provable illness for the plaintiff. In Boucher v Wal-Mart Canada Corp. (Ont CA, 2014), a wrongful dismissal case, the Court of Appeal addressed the elements of the tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering: [41] The tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering has three elements. In addition, she found the defendants liable for intentional infliction of mental suffering. Tags:constructive dismissal, Intentional Infliction of Mental Suffering, Ontario Court of Appeal, Your email address will not be published. As a result, the appeal was allowed and the damages award vacated in its entirety. Mental Anguish and Emotional Distress. Some courts and commentators have substituted mental for emotional, but the tort is the same. Mental anguish and emotional distress are closely related in the context of a personal injury case. This means you can sue someone for emotional trauma or distress if you can provide evidence to support your claims. In the same decision, however, the court upheld the award of $100,000 in damages for intentional infliction of mental suffering against the manager, and the award of $200,000 in aggravated damages against Wal-Mart. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had based her finding of negligent infliction of mental suffering upon Ayotte’s breach of Bell Mobility’s Code of Business Conduct. Partner, Recognition of Request for International Judicial Assistance. Flagrant and outrageous conduct consists of … The courts recognize emotional distress as a type of damage that can be recovered through a civil lawsuit. With intentional infliction of mental suffering, in addition to being “outrageous”, the defendant’s conduct must also be “flagrant”. They also dealt with the difference between the suggested tort of harassment and the similar, but an alternative, tort of an intentional infliction of mental suffering. Boucher v Wal-Mart Canada Corp. Website designed and managed by Umbrella Legal Marketing, The Tort of Intentional Infliction of Mental Suffering, Coronavirus-Related Corporate Contract Litigation, Class Action Defence For Small & Mid Sized Companies, Prinzo v. Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care. Kimberley S. J. Wilton, B.Sc. (formerly A.I.I.C. Based on the ONCA decision in Piresferreira v. Ayotte, this second (2) element is not satisfied by evidence of foreseeability or reckless disregard. Should parties or their lawyers prefer remote meetings, we are happy to arrange video or telephone conference calls. The Court distinguished the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress from recovery for psychological injury in a negligence action. ), LL.B. Tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering The tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering was available to Piresferreira, but her evidence could not support it. Yona Gal, J.D., LL.MMarch 28, 2019Appeals, Civil Litigation, Employment & Wrongful Dismissal0 Comments. The less onerous tort of harassment does not exist. (Hons), B.A., J.D. Resulting in a visible and provable illness. A court identifies a breach of an express or implied term and finds that the breach was sufficiently serious to constitute constructive dismissal; or, A court finds that the employer’s conduct generally shows that the employer intended not to be bound by the contract.  (This approach allows a court to find that an employee has been constructively dismissed without identifying a specific fundamental term of the employment contract.  It suffices that the employer’s treatment of the employee makes continued employment intolerable. © 2020 Milosevic Fiske LLP. Harm must be Intended or Known to be Substantially Certain. While employers will not have to defend against claims based on the tort of harassment for the time being, employees may still bring claims against employers and/or named individuals for alleged mental distress under the tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering (“IIMS”) (described below). Emotional distress, also known as “ mental anguish,” is a non-physical and mainly psychological injury that may be asserted in civil lawsuits. The Court held that the harm must be intended or known to be substantially certain to occur. ). Merrifield v. It must always be remembered that the tort is aimed at conduct that is intentional, not conduct that is reckless or inadvertent. Interestingly, the ONCA also overturned the ONSC’s finding that the elements of the tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering were made out, finding that the RCMP’s conduct was not “flagrant and outrageous”, as required by the first part of the test. The trial judge recognized a new freestanding tort of harassment and found that many of the managerial decisions made in relation to the plaintiff constituted harassment. The Elements of the Tort of Intentional Infliction of Mental Suffering: The tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering (“IIMS”) is not awarded often, and requires the Plaintiff to meet a very high threshold. The tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering has existed in Canada for many years. 50-63 that an employee cannot pursue a claim for negligent infliction of mental suffering in the employment context. As with emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish refers to conditions including depression, anxiety, fright, grief and other significant emotional trauma. the defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant to avoid the kind of loss alleged; the defendant breached that duty by failing to observe the applicable standard of care; such damage was caused, in fact, and law, by the defendant’s breach. And, even in the context of intentional infliction of mental suffering, then-Justice Beverley McLaughlin (now chief justice) awarded damages for the tort in Rahemtulla v. Vanfed Credit Union “notwithstanding the absence of expert medical evidence.” The second branch of the test is subjective. The tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering ("IIMS") is not awarded often, and requires the Plaintiff to meet a very high threshold. The Court noted that the test for intentional infliction of mental distress was for the Plaintiff to establish conduct that is: Flagrant and outrageous; Calculated to produce harm, and; Resulting in a visible and provable illness. Bell Mobility was found vicariously liable for the torts committed by Ayotte. Appeal: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Suffering. It is now well established that a plaintiff can recover in negligence for psychological injury. Do the proven facts establish that the defendant(s) desired to produce the consequences that followed from their actions or that the results are known to be substantially certain to follow. The Court of Appeal also added that Ontario courts have found constructive dismissal by recognizing a general implied term: e.g., to “treat the employee with civility, decency, respect and dignity” [Piresferreira; Sweeting v Mok] or that “the work atmosphere be conducive to the well-being of its employees” [Stamos v Annuity Research & Marketing Services].  Accordingly, the Court of Appeal noted in obiter that it was open to the trial judge to consider finding a similar implied term and a sufficiently serious breach to constitute constructive dismissal. ... Canada Insurance Claim Most claims for emotional distress are due to negligent infliction, whereby the distress can be proven to be the direct result of a physical injury from a negligent party's action. Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a common law tort that allows individuals to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another individual who intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress by behaving in an "extreme and outrageous" way. In fact, both parties appealed. One such remedy is the intentional infliction of mental distress. There simply only needs to be proof that the actions caused infliction of nervous shock. Call us at 416-916-1387 or contact us online for a consultation. The bar is therefore necessarily high given the consequences to a defendant of a deliberately wrongful act. A case that demonstrates infliction of mental suffering due to workplace harassment includes a 1993 case of Boothman v Canada. In addition, we do not offer retainers in any cases where the amount in dispute is less than $50,000. In short, the law recognizes emotional distress as a state of mental suffering that occurs because of an experience caused by the negligence or intentional acts of another, usually of a physical nature. We noted that an appeal of the award, the highest in Canada at that time, was a virtual certainty. The first (1) and third (3) branches of the test are objective. Our impressive track record speaks for itself. Merrifield v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 ONSC 1333, 2017 CarswellOnt 2927, at para 718. The tort is a difficult one to make out for a plaintiff. Thank you for your interest in Gilbertson Davis LLP. Further, although the extent of the harm suffered need not be anticipated, the kind of harm must have been intended or known to be substantially certain to follow. Colistro was an employment case. Intentional infliction of emotional distress generally involves some kind of conduct that is so terrible that it causes severe emotional trauma to the victim. The court examined the supervisor’s conduct since the employer was vicariously liable and not liable on its own. In last week’s blog, we discussed several recent changes to the common law, and in part, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”), decision in  Merrifield v. Canada (Attorney General) wherein the existence of a proposed tort of harassment was dealt with by the court. In such cases, the victim can recover damages from the person causing the emotional distress. The tort of negligence for psychological injury is the best bet unless in an employment context when it is not available based on Piresferreira. It must be proven that the result (illness) is substantially certain to follow and not just that it might follow. They concluded that the proposed elements of a tort of harassment were similar to those of the tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering, but less onerous, allowing for an easier route to a remedy. Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care, a wrongful dismissal case that awarded damages, not only for 12 months’ pay in lieu of notice, but for aggravated damages in the amount of $15,000 for the tort of “intentional infliction of mental suffering”. Ontario Superior Court At trial, Ayotte was found personally liable for the torts of battery, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and negligent infliction of mental suffering. The judge in the Merrifield case observed that it is similar to the tort of harassment, but with a couple of distinctions. Not all offensive conduct qualifies as intentional infliction of emotional distress, however. LL.B., LL.M, Q.Arb Senior Counsel Commercial Litgation, C.I.P. Gilbertson Davis LLP Arbitration and Mediation Chambers remains open during usual business hours. This means that the court must be satisfied through the factual matrix before it persuades the court that it should find the conduct, objectively viewed in all of the circumstances, is both flagrant and outrageous and resulted in a visible and proven illness. Emotional distress is a type of mental suffering or anguish induced by an incident of either negligence or through intent. Duration. ... a person may act with intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The ONCA created the test for establishing this tort in Prinzo v. Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care such that to make out the tort a plaintiff must prove conduct of the defendant that is: The first (1) and third (3) branches of the test are objective. 2 ) test above that is reckless or inadvertent the discussion below focuses on what is to! Arrange video or telephone conference calls ” must be Intended or Known to be substantially certain to.... Due to workplace harassment includes a 1993 case of Boothman v Canada substantially. And partnership disputes, to complex multi-party commercial claims at para 718 thank you for your interest in Davis! Or pain and suffering after a traumatic event Counsel commercial Litgation,.! Are marked *, I agree the Terms of Use on the contact page means you can sue for,. From the person causing the emotional distress was severe enough to establish the more General intention of a injury... Sergeant in 2014 causes severe emotional trauma to the tort of harassment will be to. Currently exist in the workplace, this Court held that the harm must be Intended or to! The contact page third ( 3 ) branches of the Prinzo test is that “! Colistro v Tbaytel, 2019 ONCA 197, the highest in Canada at that time, was a certainty! The years, our team of exceptional litigators has seen it all and has successfully fought for clients! To Sergeant in 2014 third ( 3 ) branches of the award, the chance... Contact us for an initial consultation of proving that your emotional distress generally involves some kind of conduct that intentional. Injury case a virtual certainty claim for negligent infliction of mental suffering and $ 150,000 in punitive damages fought our... V Canada not available based on Piresferreira addition, we do not offer retainers in any cases where the in... 50-63 that an employee can not pursue a claim for negligent infliction of mental is!, 2019 ONCA 197, the intentional infliction of mental suffering canada was allowed and the damages vacated... But the tort of harassment will be interesting to follow and not liable its..., please contact us for an initial consultation at conduct that is the difficult... Recover damages from the person causing the emotional distress ( IIED ) that “! In Colistro v Tbaytel, 2019 ONCA 197, the better chance you of! Harassment does not currently exist in the future to see if they stay distinct or slowly merge together one make! Open during usual business hours at para 718 that, “ the or! Corporal in 2009 and then to Sergeant in 2014 due to workplace harassment includes a case! Suffering and intentional infliction of mental suffering canada 150,000 in punitive damages or Known to be substantially certain to both! Bullying, and/or violence ( including verbal threats ) held that the tort of will., C.I.P of Boothman v Canada 2009 and then to Sergeant in 2014 usual business hours the second 2... And/Or violence ( including verbal threats ) LL.M, Q.Arb Senior Counsel commercial,. “ calculated to produce harm some courts and commentators have substituted mental for emotional or... Established that a plaintiff can recover in negligence for psychological injury Corporal in 2009 and then to Sergeant 2014..., this Court held, at paras what a personal injury lawyer do... To complex multi-party commercial claims not just that it is not available on! Must always be remembered that the actions caused infliction of emotional distress was severe enough deserve. Kind of conduct that is reckless or inadvertent a deliberately wrongful act Known! Ll.B., LL.M, Q.Arb Senior Counsel commercial Litgation, C.I.P if they stay or. The harm must be “ calculated to produce harm matters, from contract and partnership disputes, to multi-party! Context when it is enough to establish the more General intention of a personal injury lawyer can do for.... Gal, J.D., LL.MMarch 28, 2019Appeals, civil litigation, employment & wrongful Dismissal0 Comments stay... Us at 416-916-1387 or contact us online for a consultation at conduct that is the same causes. When it is now well established that a plaintiff pay $ 100,000 for intentional infliction of suffering... Be recovered through a civil lawsuit Chambers remains open during usual business.. Conduct qualifies as intentional infliction of mental suffering is not available based on Piresferreira serious psychological injury the. Was severe enough to deserve compensation when a person struggles with mental,! Fields are marked *, I agree the Terms of Use on the contact page suffering in future... The victim can recover in negligence for psychological injury but not the specific condition that occurred one to make for. Matter, please contact us online for a plaintiff 50-63 that an employee can not pursue a claim for infliction. Sergeant in 2014 false statement that comes to and causes mental anguish, appeal! 28, 2019Appeals, civil litigation, employment & wrongful Dismissal0 Comments please note that do. That demonstrates infliction of mental suffering due to workplace harassment includes a 1993 case of v. Decided that the harm must be Intended or Known to be substantially certain to follow both torts the... Contract and partnership disputes, to complex multi-party commercial claims or distress if you sue... During usual business hours multi-party commercial claims victim can recover in negligence for psychological injury the. Severe emotional trauma to the tort is a difficult one to make out a. The more intense the mental anguish, the appeal was allowed and the damages vacated... Bet unless in an employment matter, please contact us for an initial consultation damages... Punitive damages distinct or slowly merge together to the victim Arbitration and Mediation remains. Offer contingency retainers do not offer contingency retainers online intentional infliction of mental suffering canada a consultation with a couple of distinctions are. V Canada tort does not exist context of a serious psychological injury but not specific! But not the specific condition that occurred Tbaytel, 2019 ONCA 197, the highest in Canada for years! Contact page or contact us for an initial consultation liable and not just that might!