Abstract
Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd [2008] 2 SCR 114 was the Supreme Court of Canada’s first opportunity for more than 50 years to restate the principles of liability for psychiatric injury as applied in Canada. However, McLachlin CJ’s economically worded judgment did not go into the issues in any detail. In the recent case of Healey v. Lakeridge Health Corp 2011 ONCA 55, the Ontario Court of Appeal had to resolve an ambiguity in McLachlin CJ’s judgment: the plaintiffs argued that it had lowered the recognisable psychiatric illness threshold, but the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the orthodox view. Healey, however, affirms another distinctive trend seemingly initiated by Mustapha: to treat issues of psychiatric injury under the heading of remoteness rather than duty.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
