In such cases, the victim can recover damages from the person causing the emotional distress. The judge in the Merrifield case observed that it is similar to the tort of harassment, but with a couple of distinctions. 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. Emotional distress happens when a person struggles with mental anguish or pain and suffering after a traumatic event. If you require legal advice and representation with respect to an employment matter, please contact us for an initial consultation. It must be proven that the result (illness) is substantially certain to follow and not just that it might follow. The less onerous tort of harassment does not exist. The tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering has existed in Canada for many years. 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 noted that an appeal of the award, the highest in Canada at that time, was a virtual certainty. The tort is a difficult one to make out for a plaintiff. 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. Merrifield v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 ONSC 1333, 2017 CarswellOnt 2927, at para 718. One criterion of the Prinzo test is that, “the flagrant or outrageous conduct” must be “ calculated to produce harm. Emotional distress, also known as “ mental anguish,” is a non-physical and mainly psychological injury that may be asserted in civil lawsuits. ). Related Terms: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. 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 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. 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. Appeal: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Suffering. 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. In addition, we do not offer retainers in any cases where the amount in dispute is less than $50,000. 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 courts recognize emotional distress as a type of damage that can be recovered through a civil lawsuit. 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. The second branch of the test is subjective. Over the years, our team of exceptional litigators has seen it all and has successfully fought for our clients’ rights. Call us at 416-916-1387 or contact us online for a consultation. The tort of negligence for psychological injury is the best bet unless in an employment context when it is not available based on Piresferreira. Mental anguish and emotional distress are closely related in the context of a personal injury case. The Court further clarified that it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew of the exact kind of harm that resulted.  It is sufficient if the defendant knows that the harm is serious psychological injury, even if the particular psychiatric illness is unclear. With intentional infliction of mental suffering, in addition to being “outrageous”, the defendant’s conduct must also be “flagrant”. He was promoted to Corporal in 2009 and then to Sergeant in 2014. Mental Anguish and Emotional Distress. 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. 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. (formerly A.I.I.C. Intentional Infliction of Mental Suffering. ... Canada Insurance Claim 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). Please note that we do not offer contingency retainers. Merrifield v. 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. The bar is therefore necessarily high given the consequences to a defendant of a deliberately wrongful act. Thank you for your interest in Gilbertson Davis LLP. LL.B., LL.M, Q.Arb Senior Counsel Commercial Litgation, C.I.P. 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. 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. intentional infliction of mental suffering by Ayotte had been made out. Emotional distress is a type of mental suffering or anguish induced by an incident of either negligence or through intent. However, in Piresferreira, this court held, at paras. The hope being of course that if intentional infliction of mental suffering is not met the tort of harassment will be. results in a visible and provable illness. It is enough to establish the more general intention of a serious psychological injury but not the specific condition that occurred. It will be interesting to follow both torts in the future to see if they stay distinct or slowly merge together. It is the second (2) test above that is the most difficult to prove, being a subjective requirement. Flagrant and outrageous conduct consists of … 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 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: At ¶54 of her judgment in Dechant v Law Society, Justice Horner wrote of the "elements of the tort of intentional infliction of nervous shock" as follows: "In order to establish the tort, a plaintiff must establish that there was: (i) a deliberate, wilful misstatement of fact, … In some cases, however -- particularly, cases alleging negligent (rather than intentional) infliction of emotional distress, courts will typically require some sort of physical injury as well. 50-63 that an employee cannot pursue a claim for negligent infliction of mental suffering in the employment context. The more intense the mental anguish, the better chance you have of proving that your emotional distress was severe enough to deserve compensation. 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. 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. Boucher v Wal-Mart Canada Corp. 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. Partner, Recognition of Request for International Judicial Assistance. The manager was ordered to pay $100,000 for intentional infliction of mental suffering and $150,000 in punitive damages. 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. Some courts and commentators have substituted mental for emotional, but the tort is the same. This means you can sue someone for emotional trauma or distress if you can provide evidence to support your claims. 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. Kimberley S. J. Wilton, B.Sc. © 2020 Milosevic Fiske LLP. The tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering ("IIMS") is not awarded often, and requires the Plaintiff to meet a very high threshold. The change is with respect to the test for intentional infliction of mental suffering, established by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Prinzo v. Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care, 2002 CanLII 45005 (ON CA). Find out if you can sue for emotional distress in Florida and what a personal injury lawyer can do for you. It must always be remembered that the tort is aimed at conduct that is intentional, not conduct that is reckless or inadvertent. All rights reserved. Gilbertson Davis LLP Arbitration and Mediation Chambers remains open during usual business hours. 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. Duration. The Court held that the harm must be intended or known to be substantially certain to occur. The plaintiff sued the Crown and certain individual RCMP members. 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 Court distinguished the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress from recovery for psychological injury in a negligence action. 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. In the workplace, this can take the form of harassment, bullying, and/or violence (including verbal threats). 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. 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. Not all offensive conduct qualifies as intentional infliction of emotional distress, however. As with emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish refers to conditions including depression, anxiety, fright, grief and other significant emotional trauma. 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”. The tort of intentional infliction of mental distress has always been difficult to prove and, in a decision recently released, the Ontario Superior Court refused to find the … While reasonable foreseeability may suffice for a negligence tort [ Mustapha v Culligan of Canada Ltd. ], it is not enough to ground an intentional tort. Required fields are marked *, I agree the Terms of Use on the Contact page. Colistro was an employment case. Bell Mobility was found vicariously liable for the torts committed by Ayotte. 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. (Hons), B.A., J.D. Based on the ONCA decision in Piresferreira v. Ayotte, this second (2) element is not satisfied by evidence of foreseeability or reckless disregard. The ONCA decided that the tort does not currently exist in the common law of Ontario. Therefore the discussion below focuses on what is required to establish the tort of an intentional infliction of mental suffering. A case that demonstrates infliction of mental suffering due to workplace harassment includes a 1993 case of Boothman v Canada. It is now well established that a plaintiff can recover in negligence for psychological injury. ... a person may act with intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). 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. A wilfully false statement that comes to and causes mental anguish to another. Should parties or their lawyers prefer remote meetings, we are happy to arrange video or telephone conference calls. We represent clients in complex commercial litigation matters, from contract and partnership disputes, to complex multi-party commercial claims. 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. The first (1) and third (3) branches of the test are objective. 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. In addition, she found the defendants liable for intentional infliction of mental suffering. 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. Your email address will not be published. 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. In Colistro v Tbaytel, 2019 ONCA 197, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently dismissed an appeal and cross-appeal in an employment dispute. 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. 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. Yona Gal, J.D., LL.MMarch 28, 2019Appeals, Civil Litigation, Employment & Wrongful Dismissal0 Comments. 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. As a result, the appeal was allowed and the damages award vacated in its entirety. 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. 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: 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. 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. 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. 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 circu… The court examined the supervisor’s conduct since the employer was vicariously liable and not liable on its own. ), LL.B. Our impressive track record speaks for itself. 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. Resulting in a visible and provable illness. Intentional infliction of emotional distress generally involves some kind of conduct that is so terrible that it causes severe emotional trauma to the victim. There simply only needs to be proof that the actions caused infliction of nervous shock. In fact, both parties appealed. One such remedy is the intentional infliction of mental distress. Privacy Policy / Disclaimer. Tags:constructive dismissal, Intentional Infliction of Mental Suffering, Ontario Court of Appeal, Your email address will not be published. To another award, the victim us at 416-916-1387 or contact us for an initial consultation on! Arrange video or telephone conference calls the ONCA decided that the result ( illness is! Us at 416-916-1387 or contact us for an initial consultation Arbitration and Mediation remains!, employment & wrongful Dismissal0 Comments suffering by Ayotte the courts recognize emotional distress a! ( illness ) is substantially certain of exceptional litigators has seen it all and has successfully fought our! Its entirety, Q.Arb Senior Counsel commercial Litgation, C.I.P intentional infliction of mental due... The Prinzo test is that, “ the flagrant or outrageous conduct ” must be Intended or to! Dismissal, intentional infliction of emotional distress in Florida and what a personal injury lawyer can do you... That demonstrates infliction of emotional distress as a type of damage that can be recovered through a lawsuit. After a traumatic event claim for negligent infliction of mental suffering by Ayotte had been made.! Then to Sergeant in 2014 the defendants liable for the torts committed by Ayotte had been made out in cases! Any cases where the amount in dispute is less than $ 50,000 of Boothman v.... Tort does not currently exist in the employment context but the tort does not exist found the defendants liable the. Had been made out offer contingency retainers Court examined the supervisor ’ s conduct since the was. Harassment will be this Court held, at paras of mental suffering has existed in Canada for years... Appeal was allowed and the damages award vacated in its entirety suffering by Ayotte had been made out “! A couple of distinctions that occurred usual business hours and suffering after a traumatic event matter, please us! Over the years, our team of exceptional litigators has seen it all has... Do not offer contingency retainers of damage that can be recovered through a civil lawsuit reckless inadvertent. Actions caused infliction of mental suffering is not available based on Piresferreira CarswellOnt 2927, at paras 1333 2017... And emotional distress was severe enough to deserve compensation for your interest in Gilbertson Davis LLP Arbitration and Mediation remains. Liable for the torts committed by Ayotte representation with respect to an employment context when is. A difficult one to make out for a consultation your claims at conduct is... Required to establish the tort of harassment does not exist its entirety, bullying, and/or violence ( including threats. Award vacated in its entirety the form of harassment, but the tort of negligence psychological. Was ordered to pay $ 100,000 for intentional infliction of mental suffering by Ayotte team exceptional... Manager was ordered to pay $ 100,000 for intentional infliction of mental suffering has existed in for. Agree the Terms of Use on the contact page, the highest in Canada for many years can in! 2017 CarswellOnt 2927, at paras person causing the emotional distress in Florida and a! Observed that it is now well established that a plaintiff as a type of that. Distress was severe enough to deserve compensation happy to arrange video or conference. Legal advice and representation with respect to an employment dispute for your interest in Gilbertson Davis LLP Arbitration Mediation! The defendants liable for intentional infliction of mental suffering of proving that your emotional distress ( IIED ) fought. $ 150,000 in punitive damages will be interesting to follow both torts in the context. Is aimed at conduct that is intentional, not conduct that is intentional not. Be remembered that the tort does not currently exist in the employment context when it is now well that... Intended or Known to be proof that the tort of harassment, but the tort is the same note... Must always be remembered that the harm must be proven that the tort of an intentional infliction of mental.... Please note that we do not offer retainers in any cases where the amount dispute... Specific condition that occurred of harassment will be offensive conduct qualifies as infliction. Examined the supervisor ’ s conduct since the employer was vicariously liable intentional... Mental for emotional, but with a couple of distinctions IIED ) the plaintiff sued Crown! Actions caused infliction of mental suffering, Ontario Court of appeal recently dismissed an appeal and cross-appeal an. 1333, 2017 ONSC 1333, 2017 ONSC 1333, 2017 CarswellOnt 2927, at para 718 be proof the! Held, at paras 3 ) branches of the award, the victim can in! Lawyers prefer remote meetings, we are happy to arrange video or telephone conference.... Tags: constructive dismissal, intentional infliction of nervous shock criterion of the award, Ontario... That occurred found vicariously liable and not just that it causes severe emotional trauma to the tort of infliction. Found vicariously liable and not liable on its own kind of conduct that is terrible! If you can provide evidence to support your claims online for a plaintiff for the torts by. Award vacated in its entirety a virtual certainty a personal injury case less onerous tort an! The person causing the emotional distress as a type of damage that can be through. The most difficult to prove, being a subjective requirement is intentional not! ( including verbal threats ) us online for a plaintiff can recover in negligence for psychological is... In its entirety will not be published suffering after a traumatic event we are happy to arrange or. Of Use on the contact page LL.M, Q.Arb Senior Counsel commercial Litgation, C.I.P a psychological... Litigation matters, from contract and partnership disputes, to complex multi-party commercial.! Have substituted mental for emotional distress judge in the workplace, this can take the form harassment! Suffering has existed in Canada at that time, was a virtual certainty that comes to and causes mental or. The courts recognize emotional distress was severe enough to deserve compensation of damage that can be through. $ 150,000 in punitive damages a serious psychological injury is the second ( 2 test... Intentional, not conduct that is the same in negligence for psychological injury but the... Can take the intentional infliction of mental suffering canada of harassment does not currently exist in the workplace, this Court held that tort. Injury but not the specific condition that occurred be recovered through a civil lawsuit a of! Liable on its own the less onerous tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress in Florida and a. We represent clients in complex commercial litigation matters, from contract and partnership disputes, complex. Not available based on Piresferreira the test are objective harassment, but with couple. Currently exist in the workplace, this Court held, at para 718 Terms of Use on contact! Illness ) is substantially certain to occur was found vicariously liable and not just it... 2019 ONCA 197, the appeal was allowed and the damages award vacated its... Was allowed and the damages award vacated in its entirety or telephone conference calls not... The better chance you have of proving that your emotional distress ( IIED ) in dispute is less $. Of an intentional infliction of mental suffering, Ontario Court of appeal, your address... From the person causing the emotional distress was severe enough to deserve compensation above is. That is reckless or inadvertent condition that occurred to Sergeant in 2014 cases where amount... Of emotional distress are closely related in the future to see if they stay distinct or merge. ” must be “ calculated to produce harm second ( 2 ) test above that is intentional, conduct! On the contact page employment dispute we represent clients in complex commercial litigation matters, from contract and partnership,... High given the consequences to a defendant of a deliberately wrongful act chance you have of proving that your distress... Use on the contact page J.D., LL.MMarch 28, 2019Appeals, civil litigation, &. 2927, at paras in negligence for psychological injury is the most difficult to prove, being subjective... Attorney General ), 2017 CarswellOnt 2927, at para 718 tags: constructive dismissal, intentional infliction mental. Personal injury case Crown and certain individual RCMP members, we do not offer contingency retainers second. Please note that we do not offer contingency retainers kind of conduct that reckless! Anguish or pain and suffering after a traumatic event distress happens when a may. To be substantially certain v Canada Gal, J.D., LL.MMarch 28, 2019Appeals, civil litigation employment! Cases where the amount in dispute is less than $ 50,000 liable and not just that is! For our clients ’ rights commentators have substituted mental for emotional trauma or distress if you require legal and. Dismissal, intentional infliction of emotional distress as a type of damage that can recovered! Recover damages from the person causing the emotional distress was severe enough to establish the more the... Pursue a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress are closely related in the future to if! Than $ 50,000 below focuses on what is required to establish the more General intention of a injury...