Canada (AG) v Hislop

Canada (AG) v Hislop is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada case that significantly expanded the definition of "psychiatric injury" for the purposes of establishing a claim in negligence. The case centered on Mr. Hislop, who was wrongly identified by police as a suspect in a series of robberies and subjected to a prolonged and intrusive investigation despite evidence suggesting his innocence. As a result of this police conduct, Mr. Hislop suffered significant psychological distress, including anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress symptoms.

The key issue before the Court was whether Mr. Hislop could recover damages for his psychological injury even though he had not suffered a recognizable psychiatric illness in the traditional sense. The Court, in a unanimous decision, held that a plaintiff can recover damages for negligently inflicted mental distress even in the absence of a medically recognized psychiatric illness, provided that the distress is serious and prolonged, and rises above the ordinary annoyances, anxieties, and fears that people living in society routinely experience.

The Court emphasized the importance of focusing on the severity and prolongation of the mental distress, rather than solely on the existence of a specific diagnostic label. Factors relevant to assessing the severity and duration of the distress include the nature of the wrongful conduct, the degree to which the conduct was targeted at the plaintiff, the impact of the distress on the plaintiff's daily life, and the presence of medical evidence corroborating the distress.

Canada (AG) v Hislop has had a profound impact on the law of negligence in Canada. It lowered the bar for proving psychological injury, making it easier for plaintiffs who have suffered genuine and serious mental distress as a result of another's negligence to recover damages. The case also highlights the importance of police accountability and the potential for police misconduct to cause significant psychological harm. The principles established in Hislop have been applied in various contexts, including cases involving workplace harassment, medical malpractice, and other forms of negligence. The decision is considered a significant development in recognizing and addressing the psychological consequences of negligent conduct.