Warren Berg: 0:00

Good morning and welcome to the July edition of Ask the Lawyer Across Alberta on Windspeaker Radio CFWE and CJWE. I'm your host, Warren Berg, and joining us this month again are Cynthia Carels of Weir Bowen LLP in Edmonton and new to the show this month, Anisa Dattu.

Cynthia Carels: 0:16

Yes, nice to see you, Warren, and I'm very pleased to introduce my colleague, Anisa Dattu. Anisa actually joined us at Weir Bowen in 2023 as an associate, after spending some time in the trenches of family law. Yeah, so she has actually worked as a lawyer in both Alberta and Ontario and we are very deeply appreciative to have her breadth of experience on our team here at Weir Bowen.

Anisa Dattu: 0:40

Thank you both for the introduction. I'm very happy to be here.

Warren Berg: 0:43

Weir Bowen is an Edmonton-based law firm. However, their lawyers have represented clients across Alberta,BC, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories and have been counsel in precedent-setting cases all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Cynthia Carels: 0:55

Yeah, our team has really had the privilege of representing clients all across Alberta and a number of other provinces and we do have lawyers with inter-jurisdictional credentials in addition to Anisa here, and with our longstanding legacy and bench strength, we really are committed to helping our clients navigate, some of you know, truly the most challenging periods of their lives and one of the greatest strengths of Weir Bowen is really that our clients benefit from that collective knowledge and experience of our entire team, who are constantly collaborating on ideas and strategies and advice.

Anisa Dattu: 1:29

Yes, since joining Weir Bowen, it's clear that all of us have benefited from the tremendous legacy of the firm's founding partners and the many amazing lawyers who have been part of the firm ever since. There's a breadth of knowledge and you can never leave a meeting or a conversation without some useful information.

Warren Berg: 1:45

And it's certainly refreshing to hear about supportive team environments in law firms these days, especially since you know, at least for my opinion, what I've seen on TV, most impressions tend to be negatively shaped by these legal TV dramas and true crime podcasts. So for today, I understand that the focus of our episode is going to be on the ever so prevalent but rarely talked about subject of psychological and mental health injuries in personal injury cases.

Cynthia Carels: 2:11

Yeah, that's right. Psychological and mental health injuries are such an important part of our practice, but they're difficult injuries to see and to prove and also to actually quantify what their value is. You know, most of us probably associate the idea of personal injury law with physical injuries like broken bones and torn ligaments, scarring and bruising. You know all those things that you can see. However, traumatic accidents and events can produce psychological damages just as readily as they produce physical damage, and in Alberta, you can seek compensation for psychological injuries in the same way that you might seek compensation for physical injuries, and that is through a personal injury claim.

Anisa Dattu: 2:53

Absolutely. These injuries are different than a physical injury. I've always found it challenging for our clients who suffer with a significant psychological or mental health injury to bring it up or discuss it with us, because sometimes they're unable to recognize it themselves or feel that it's too taboo to discuss.

Warren Berg: 3:09

So I would take it that this is a sensitive topic.

Cynthia Carels: 3:12

It really can be, and that's why we wanted to dedicate a whole show to discuss it today for our listeners to really understand what these kinds of injuries entail, how to talk about it with treating medical professionals and, of course, how to share this kind of information with your lawyer.

Anisa Dattu: 3:30

Any traumatic experience has the potential to produce a psychological injury. This injury can manifest itself into a number of conditions or symptoms, and it can really be challenging to sort that out after an accident.

Warren Berg: 3:42

So let's start with some of the basics. For myself, when I hear the words mental health, there's been, you know, a lot of coverage about that in recent times, especially on social media, but I guess I've never really thought about what a psychological injury might be or what that entails. Can you maybe explain what we mean by psychological injuries in the context of personal injury law?

Anisa Dattu: 4:03

Well, you're on the right path, Warren. There has been a lot more talk about mental health issues and healthier ways of dealing with them in the media lately, and although psychological injuries and mental health injuries are related and they often overlapped, they are distinct concepts, so psychological injuries are often specific and event-related, while mental health injuries are broader and can be influenced by various factors over time.

Cynthia Carels: 4:26

That's right, and further to that, psychological injuries may require targeted interventions for specific events, whereas mental health injuries often need more comprehensive ongoing treatment plans.

Warren Berg: 4:40

So what are some of the types of psychological or mental health injuries that you might see in your practice?

Anisa Dattu: 4:45

These injuries can include things like post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, sleeping disorders, phobias, panic attacks and other stress-related conditions.

Warren Berg: 4:56

So how would you, as lawyers, treat psychological or mental health injuries differently from physical injuries?

Anisa Dattu: 5:03

Well, to be clear right out of the gate, we as lawyers do not treat injuries. We actually leave the treatment to the professionals. But the law itself approaches both physical and psychological injuries as valid injuries that are worthy of consideration. And as lawyers working in this area, we recognize that there tends to be a lot of overlap between these kinds of injuries. They rarely happen in isolation.

Cynthia Carels: 5:26

Yeah that said, in our society we tend to sympathize more with people suffering from physical injuries rather than psychological injuries, and it's a strange concept to wrap your head around, because it makes it seem like we need to see an injury, like you know, on an x-ray film or an MRI or something before we're actually going to believe that it exists. And it also makes it seem like those who are suffering psychologically might be perceived as a bit weaker in disposition than those people who are just suffering physically.

Anisa Dattu: 5:57

That's right. Frankly, in our industry, these cases are often viewed as problematic and challenging, and it's easy to miss opportunities to provide support. The stigma underpins many of the defenses used to diminish, dismiss and deny the experiences of those suffering from psychological injuries.

Cynthia Carels: 6:14

So really understanding how prevalent psychological injuries in society are can help us to gain perspective on our own clients lives. So I like to say I like to bring what we call a trauma informed approach to dealing with our clients, as I found that empathy and understanding of traumatic experience is truly the first step in helping our clients to navigate legal processes and ultimately helping them to also prove their psychological injuries.

Anisa Dattu: 6:42

So we like to be problem solvers. We want to tackle this as early as we can because we know that many of our clients with actual psychological or mental health injuries tend to downplay them. In part, it may be because they don't understand what's really going on or how to deal with the symptoms that they're experiencing, and some don't even realize or want to acknowledge that they have them.

Warren Berg: 7:01

And I can imagine that the stigma that some of the injuries might carry might be really heavy. In fact, so much so that some of your clients might not want to talk about it at all, even with their friends or their families or healthcare professionals, and especially not their lawyer.

Cynthia Carels: 7:15

Yeah, you know absolutely right. But we're really trying to change that narrative by trying to turn those shields that people have around them into actual swords, that's right.

Anisa Dattu: 7:27

Navigating personal injury claims can be like walking through a legal minefield. You have to prove not just the injury but the fault and the impact on your life, and when it comes to psychological or mental health injuries, things get even more complex. These are invisible injuries, so you need solid evidence, sometimes expert testimony, and a clear narrative to make your case.

Warren Berg: 7:48

Now I've learned a lot from the lawyers at Weir Bowen during Ask the Lawyer, and I would expect that it's easier said than done to prove an injury that's not physical, such as a broken bone on an x-ray or an MRI. Can you give us an example of a case involving a psychological injury?

Cynthia Carels: 8:05

Yeah, sure, Definitely. Referring to some of our cases that we have dealt with helps to make things more concrete. So one case that comes to mind involved a client who was in a severe car accident and although they did suffer significant physical injuries, it actually was the psychological injury that was even more profound. This client went on to develop PTSD, so that post-traumatic stress disorder that we hear about, as well as other stress-related disorders that made it very difficult for them to even leave the house or feel safe in the world generally, and this drastically affected their ability to work and perform their daily activities of life even more than their physical injuries. So we were able to help them secure compensation both for those physical injuries but as well as the psychological ones that covered their general pain and suffering, their therapy costs and lost wages due to their inability to work.

Warren Berg: 9:01

This would probably be a good time to talk about how our listeners can get in touch with you if they need to talk to a lawyer about a personal injury claim, whether it's a motor vehicle accident or medical malpractice or some other type of injury. What is the best way to connect with you?

Cynthia Carels: 9:14

So the easiest way is to check out our website at we'rebowencom so that's w-e-i-r-b-o-w-e-ncom and on our Contact Us page. There's a form right there that you can fill in, and our reception staff, our intake team, will make sure that your inquiry gets to the right place.

Warren Berg: 9:32

And what if our listeners can't access the internet?

Anisa Dattu: 9:35

We also frequently take what we refer to as cold calls. Just call our main reception line at 780-424-2030. And our receptionist can get you in touch with one of our amazing team members.

Warren Berg: 9:48

This is Ask the Lawyer on Wind Speaker Radio CFWE and CJWE. I'm your host, warren Berg, and joining us today, anissa Datu and Cynthia Carrolls of we're Bowen LLP in Edmonton. Once again, that's W-E-I-R-B-O-W-E-N. Their phone number is 780-424-2030 or online at we'rebowencom. Today we are talking about personal injury claims involving mental health and psychological injuries, and we were just discussing an actual case that Cynthia had, where she was able to get compensation for her physical her client's physical and psychological injuries through an out-of-court settlement. But how do the courts treat cases like this?

Cynthia Carels: 10:30

if a psychological injury case goes to trial, have there been any publicly reported decisions that kind of set the stage for psychological injuries. Yeah, so that case we talked about earlier was one that we were able to just settle with the insurance company adjuster, was one that we were able to just settle with the insurance company adjuster. But there have been a number of these psychological injury cases that have gone all the way through a number of levels of trial and now we have hundreds of cases that are reported that involve psychological injuries and for those cases we follow a lot of those reported precedent case law decisions from not only Alberta but all over Canada and of course, most importantly the big one, alberta, but all over Canada and of course most importantly the big one, the Supreme Court of Canada.

Anisa Dattu: 11:09

That's right, and there are two Supreme Court of Canada cases which are very interesting to showcase, since we're discussing psychological injuries. But before we get into those, I have to ask you a question, warren.

Warren Berg: 11:20

Ask away, Anissa.

Anisa Dattu: 11:21

Have you ever gone to drink a bottle of water and noticed a dead fly in it?

Warren Berg: 11:25

I can't say that I ever have but I'm also struggling to figure out what relevance that has to psychological injuries other than the fact that it sounds really gross, and I hope it never happens to me.

Anisa Dattu: 11:36

Well, Warren, you may not believe it, but that's actually what happened in the 2008 Supreme Court of Canada case of Mustafa and Culligan.

Warren Berg: 11:44

Oh you're kidding. You've definitely unlocked kind of a new fear for me when drinking bottled water. What happened to Mustafa in this case?

Anisa Dattu: 11:51

Well, mr Mustafa and his wife were replacing the water in their dispenser at home when they spotted a dead fly and part of another inside of their new sealed Culligan water bottle. At the sight of the dead fly, mr Mustafa vomited immediately. He became nauseous, he suffered abdominal pains and he went on to develop a major depressive disorder, phobia and anxiety. He said the fly in the water ruined his life, even wrecking his sex life. He said for months he could not drink coffee made with water and feared letting the shower water hit his face directly. His regular nightmares involved flies flying on top of feces. It just sounds horrific.

Cynthia Carels: 12:30

Yeah, and you know there was a lot of mixed reaction to this case in the public. Mr Mustafa in some ways was, you know, kind of made a bit of a laughingstock and that wasn't really fair. But this is a really important case generally because the Supreme Court of Canada set the framework for establishing a case or a claim for psychological and mental health injuries in this specific case.

Warren Berg: 12:56

So let's jump into this framework because it seems like a pretty extreme reaction and I'm really curious to find out how this turned out for poor Mr Mustafa.

Anisa Dattu: 13:04

Extreme reaction and I'm really curious to find out how this turned out for poor Mr Mustafa. Well, as lawyers, when we're considering lawsuits between a number of parties such as Mr Mustafa and Colligan Water Company, we first need to examine the nature of the relationship between everyone involved.

Anisa Dattu: 13:18

And why is that? Because potential defendants owe a duty of care to individuals. They can reasonably foresee being harmed by their lack of care, and this serves to limit the scope of potential parties that make claims, as a law does not want to open the floodgates to lawsuits that are quote unquote too remote. Now, quite often, the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant is one that is already recognized as establishing a duty of care, such as between a doctor and a patient or a manufacturing consumer, like in the Mustafa case.

Warren Berg: 13:48

So, with Mr Mustafa, I take that step. Number one was pretty easy to establish in this framework, since he presumably bought the water bottle from the Culligan Water Company.

Cynthia Carels: 13:57

Correct, yeah, and then we are going to move on to assess if the defendant's behavior actually breached the standard of care under the circumstances. And in this case, the Supreme Court confirmed that selling Mr Mustafa a clearly contaminated bottle of water did in fact breach the standard of care. So, in addition to step number one, step number two was pretty clearly easily cleared as well.

Cynthia Carels: 14:22

However, that did not mean that this case was a slam dunk against Culligan Water. And step number three and beyond is where this case gets a little bit tricky, because the court went on to analyze whether Culligan's failure in this case created an unreasonable risk of foreseeable harm. So that word, that phrase, foreseeable harm, is going to be the lynch in this particular analysis. So in this case, the court determined that a person of ordinary fortitude probably wouldn't have had such an extreme reaction to seeing the dead fly in the unopened bottle of water. So although Mr Mustafa's injuries were perhaps imaginable, so although Mr Mustafa's injuries were perhaps imaginable, it wasn't exactly reasonably foreseeable. And in negligence law, defendants are only held liable for consequences that are reasonably foreseeable. So in this case, if Mr Mustafa had suffered some temporary upset over the floating fly corpses, like most of us would have had, that would have been entirely understandable, entirely reasonable and, that said, probably wouldn't have actually risen to the level of a compensable injury where people are going to be making lawsuits and suing Culligan Water.

Anisa Dattu: 15:37

Oh, cynthia, you highlighted something extremely important Minor and temporary upsets do not qualify as compensable damages. We unfortunately have to be the bearer of bad news when taking cold calls from prospective clients if we believe they have a minor or a temporary issue. This is because the last part of our assessment, and the legal test that was set out in the Mustafa case, is determining whether the plaintiff's foreseeable injuries were caused by the defendant's breach of the standard of care.

Warren Berg: 16:07

So are there some legal hairs to split between let's call them actual injuries and foreseeable ones.

Anisa Dattu: 16:13

Exactly In the case of Mustafa. No one was denying that the poor man was suffering from some debilitating psychological injuries. In fact, at the initial trial of this case, the judge awarded him a pretty hefty sum for his injuries, but the court of appeal overturned that judgment because his injuries were not reasonably foreseeable. The Supreme Court of Canada further confirmed that Mr Mustafa failed to prove that a person of ordinary fortitude would suffer from serious psychological injuries under the circumstances, which is what we call an objective test for the foreseeable consequences of someone's actions.

Cynthia Carels: 16:49

And this test of causation can actually be a roadblock in many cases Because, while you know, it's certainly possible to imagine all sorts of unusual or extreme reactions to somebody's negligence. They aren't always foreseeable. And when a plaintiff can show that a psychological injury could happen to you know, an average person of reasonable fortitude, then we as lawyers have a much better chance of actually holding that defendant responsible for all the resulting damages, regardless of a plaintiff's unique sensitivity.

Anisa Dattu: 17:22

That's right. It was clear in the Mostafa case that he had suffered a major depressive disorder with associated debilitating phobias and anxiety. There was even clear medical evidence to support that.

Cynthia Carels: 17:33

Yeah, but the delineator here was that the Supreme Court determined that Culligan-Waters breach in this case would not have resulted in the psychiatric harm of a person of ordinary fortitude. So although the extreme reaction was imaginable, it wasn't reasonably foreseeable, and that's the standard that we're looking for here in negligence law.

Anisa Dattu: 17:53

Although there is a caveat here, because the court did comment that if Culligan Water had known of Mr Mustafa's particular vulnerability when selling this water to him, then his losses would have actually been reasonably foreseeable.

Warren Berg: 18:07

So what I'm hearing is in order to make a successful claim for a psychological injury, you must prove the necessary element. Let's try that again. See, I'm the professional here. So what I'm hearing is in order to make a successful claim for psychological injuries, hearing is, in order to make a successful claim for psychological injuries, you must prove all the necessary elements of any negligence claim. But the injury will be seen as too remote if the psychological harm to a so-called ordinary person yeah, that's a mouthful, isn't it?

Cynthia Carels: 18:40

But it's true, that is correct. It can be a real challenge to navigate psychological claims, but just because Mr Mustafa wasn't successful at the Supreme Court of Canada does not mean that all psychological injury cases are hopeless or too extreme to be successful. And the Supreme Court of Canada actually did give us good guidance in another case that was decided in 2017, which revisited those principles that they had originally articulated in the Mustafa case, and in this following case, the psychological damages were successful and this is the decision known as Sadati and Moorhead and in that case, they even awarded damages for psychological injury based on the testimony of lay witnesses. So you know, this is just his friends and family that were talking about the changes in this fellow's life. It did not require expert evidence in establishing an identifiable medical diagnosis or condition.

Anisa Dattu: 19:38

In the Sadati case, the plaintiff was injured when his tractor-trailer truck was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant. The plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence, claiming he had suffered psychological injuries, one of which caused him to experience a personality change. The court decided that the circumstances of this case would have also caused foreseeable harm to that objective ordinary person of reasonable fortitude, which made this case different than the Mustafa case.

Cynthia Carels: 20:07

So in this case the court went on to say that an injured plaintiff could receive compensation for a mental injury even if that injury was not classified as a recognizable, diagnosable psychiatric illness. However, they did note that the existence of mere psychological upset is not sufficient to prove mental injury. So in other words, the court is saying there's no real legal right to happiness. So the plaintiff has to show that this disturbance they're experiencing is serious and prolonged and it goes beyond what the court calls, you know, sort of ordinary annoyances or anxieties and fears. And the court also provided some relevant factors in proving the existence of a psychological injury.

Cynthia Carels: 20:52

One of my favorite things to do on Ask the.

Cynthia Carels: 20:53

Lawyer Warren is quote legislation and read from case law. So here we go. This is how they set it out. Is quote legislation and read from case law. So here we go. This is how they set it out. They described the factors as how seriously the claimant's cognitive functions and participation in daily activities were impaired, the length of such impairment and the nature and effect of any treatment that they received. To the extent that claimants do not adduce relevant expert evidence to assist triers of fact in applying these and any other relevant considerations, they run a risk of being found to have fallen short.

Anisa Dattu: 21:25

That's right. So, while you do not need expert evidence, a key takeaway from the Sadati case is the importance of collateral witnesses such as your friends, family and co-workers, because they can help to establish causation and damages, or, in other words, it's your compensation that they can help you get.

Cynthia Carels: 21:44

Yeah, the Supreme Court of Canada's confirmation of this principle signified a real, deliberate shift and message of how our courts should see and treat psychological injuries and truly this is paralleling how we as a society are even starting to shift towards more understanding and more compassion, finally, and more acceptance of psychological injuries and their detrimental effects on people in our community who are living with them.

Warren Berg: 22:10

It never fails to amaze me how the Supreme Court of Canada views a case, and what they said is precedent case law. I'm happy to hear that you don't always need expert evidence when trying to prove a psychological injury, especially since some people might refuse to agree to see a psychologist at all.

Cynthia Carels: 22:26

Yeah, bingo.

Warren Berg: 22:27

What else do you need to help your clients prove their psychological injury? I can't imagine being as straight as forward as just friends and family.

Cynthia Carels: 22:35

Yeah, no, I'm glad you asked that. The key component here is actually timeliness. Friends and family yeah, no, I'm glad you asked that the key component here is actually timeliness. The trial judge in the Sedati case found a psychological injury purely on what we call a temporal connection. So that is the change in the plaintiff happened so quickly after the accident that it really did allow the court to bring a robust inference on that causation link. So this shows how important it is to have early intervention and to gather time-relevant evidence. In psychological injuries where causation is almost always disputed, the test is and it's always going to be. But for that defendant's negligence did the plaintiff suffer a serious and prolonged disruption that exceeded that ordinary emotional upset or distress. And obviously the more time that passes between gathering that evidence, the harder it is to prove.

Anisa Dattu: 23:26

That's right. The key is to start building your blocks. The answers start right at the beginning, and the road to unraveling the mystery of the psychological injury case starts from the moment when we, as lawyers, start working on a case. That's because the resources we get our clients in the early stages of their case have a three-fold payoff. So first the client may recover, which is the best outcome, obviously. But if not, then they might get some benefit while also generating evidence to show that they've taken reasonable steps to mitigate their damages from the injury. But if a client does not fully recover despite all of these efforts, it becomes a lot easier for us to prove these injuries are life-changing and deserve appropriate compensation.

Cynthia Carels: 24:10

These efforts end up being the building blocks for the case's narrative in the long run and despite popular misconceptions about people like us as personal injury lawyers, we actually really do want our clients to get better if they can, but we're also here for those who can't or don't get better for a wide variety of reasons.

Warren Berg: 24:32

So if you have a client who refuses to see a psychologist but you still suspect is dealing with a psychological injury, how can you get around that?

Cynthia Carels: 24:40

Yeah, you know what this actually happens? An awful lot and, believe it or not, we use occupational therapists. So they're a different kind of expert and they're going to help us sort out both these physical and psychological issues and then we rely on them to help us spearhead timely interventions for both of these kinds of injuries. So occupational therapists, also known as OTs, are trained to not minimize complaints when clients raise them and they will take the time to, you know, really ferret out and get to the root of these complaints. And this prevents clients from getting into a pattern where, you know, they become only fixated on the physical issues as the focus of their problems. So when we get OTs involved in assessments, they're generally doing things like including a basic psychological component, where they're exploring things like how the client's anxiety or mood is impacting their functioning. They might also delve into whether a client seems optimistic or perhaps pessimistic about their chances of recovery and getting back to their pre-accident condition.

Cynthia Carels: 25:46

You know a lot of that is happening kind of organically, just by way of conversations. The OTs are really good at that and this information can serve as a baseline for later comparisons, which can be very helpful in objectifying psychological injuries, a client's efforts and even their credibility and overall support for the case. Not to mention they serve as a segue into that psychological consultation.

Warren Berg: 26:11

I never knew that an occupational therapist could be so valuable in a case involving a psychological injury. It would make sense more in a physical at least in my realm I would have thought that going to a counselor or psychologist early would be helpful.

Anisa Dattu: 26:25

And it is Warren. The need for counseling and psychological interventions can be the gold standard for many clients, and people are becoming much, much more open to this kind of treatment. In many cases, it can help to give our clients tools to self-soothe anxieties and reclaim their confidence and independence. Generally speaking, the sooner these therapies are introduced, the better, not only for our client's health, but also for the client and case management moving forward. Early testing also provides a baseline from which progress or decline in the client's status can be objectively obsessed, since we know, clinical opinions can be variable at times.

Warren Berg: 27:06

What about the need for a psychiatrist?

Cynthia Carels: 27:08

Well, that can be a really delicate subject and I need to underscore again lawyers are not medical professionals and we are not in a position to make referrals for our clients to access psychiatric treatment.

Cynthia Carels: 27:21

So that's actually, you know, psychological care within the medical system itself.

Cynthia Carels: 27:27

So we're going to have to trust that the client's treating doctor or other treating medical professionals are going to spot these issues and make appropriate referrals within the system. However, in reality that does not always happen. You go into a doctor's office, you're seeing them for just a little snapshot in time and it really depends a lot on what you tell them in the office. So I'm finding more and more that the independent medical legal experts that I hire to help me sort out my clients' injuries tend to be ones who raise that flag. First of all, about psychiatric referrals. For a variety of reasons, and during these independent assessments that my office arranges for our clients, our medical assessors may suggest that the client should talk to their family doctor about making a psychiatric referral to see if there might be some place for a medical management of these injuries relating to things like sleep dysfunction that's a huge one chronic fatigue, erratic mood swings, brain fog and even some of those pain sensitization systems that might seem to be out of proportion to the physical injury.

Warren Berg: 28:31

Who are some of the other experts that you might get involved with a psychological injury?

Cynthia Carels: 28:35

So we've already talked about how an occupational therapist, psychologist, know psychologist counselor and psychiatrist can get involved.

Cynthia Carels: 28:42

But other experts we sometimes will get involved include vocational consultants, who can look at the impact of someone's psychological injuries on their employment and whether they might actually need to retrain for a different career entirely or if they can even go back to work at all. Another expert that we rely on are future cost of care experts and life care planners. You might not have heard of them before, but psychologically related care costs can definitely add up. You know medications can be expensive. Ongoing rehabilitation might be recommended. All of these things are costly and a life care plan not only looks at medications but also the necessary therapies and treatments and services and even perhaps assistive devices and equipment that might help a client to maintain or lead that quality of life that they would have led but for this injury that they've suffered. So the end goal of a life care plan is to allow the client to hopefully function independently, with supports and without assuming that you know their family members or significant others are going to now step in to fulfill that role for them.

Warren Berg: 29:47

So this might be a bit of a weird question, but how do you two, as lawyers, know if your client is suffering from a psychological or mental health injury if they're not saying anything to you or even recognizing it themselves?

Anisa Dattu: 29:58

Well, like we've been saying, we're not the medical professionals we cannot diagnose, but as lawyers we ask a lot of questions. We're nosy.

Warren Berg: 30:07

Exactly.

Anisa Dattu: 30:08

We want to know our client's history and who they were before the accident or event that caused their injuries. We can even get friends and family to share information about their own observations of who our client was before and after the accident. It's actually a very nice part of the practice of law because we get to know our clients, because this helps our clients recognize the importance of telling their story, their history, as completely as they can.

Warren Berg: 30:33

Do you have any other examples of cases or clients with a psychological injury?

Cynthia Carels: 30:36

Oh, I have hundreds, hundreds, but there was one case that I'm thinking about in particular, where a family was involved, or a plaintiff was involved, in a fairly low-speed car accident. But the aftermath of that injury was anything but minor. He could not work, he was in constant pain and struggled with daily activities, and the medical treatment that he received revealed he was suffering from major depression, which developed as a secondary injury to his chronic pain, and that's a very frequent thing that we find. He was also diagnosed with a generalized anxiety disorder and faced other psychological and social issues stemming from the accident itself. Then, to make things even more complicated, a few years later he was involved in another accident, and that worsened his depression and continued to prevent him from working.

Cynthia Carels: 31:28

And during the trial of this matter, several friends and family members testified on his behalf. They all shared a common view that before these accidents he was really a happy, healthy guy and enjoyed his job. But since the accidents they noticed a dramatic change. He seemed to be anxious, depressed, frustrated, was rarely laughing or smiling anymore, and that was totally out of character for him. And in this case, the court found that psychological injuries were reasonably foreseeable due to these car accidents and it highlighted the profound impact that psychological injuries can have on a person's life.

Warren Berg: 32:05

So what about those people who already had some sort of psychological or mental health condition before an accident? Is there any recourse for them to claim for psychological injuries in an accident?

Anisa Dattu: 32:17

Yeah, that's a great question and definitely more common than you'd think. A lot more people are actively addressing mental health concerns with their doctors, so it's not uncommon for our clients to be on medications for things like depression, anxiety, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders long before they get involved in an accident. We recognize that, and just like physical injuries, these preexisting conditions can be aggravated by accidents, and determining the extent of this worsening is crucial for calculating compensation. Even well-managed mental health issues can resurface or worsen due to the trauma that's caused by an accident, affecting the person's life in new and significant ways.

Cynthia Carels: 32:58

Yeah, that's right. We all bring our own baggage to every accident case and medical records and evidence are absolutely critical in these cases, because mental injuries are not generally visible to others, as we've discussed. So we're going to rely heavily on those detailed medical notes and expert testimonies and those kind of things can really help us to clearly illustrate how that pre-existing condition had been managed before the accident and how it went on to be changed afterwards.

Anisa Dattu: 33:29

Exactly so. Let's take a look at the 2006 Alberta case of Saris and Ramirez. In this case, the 39-year-old plaintiff was the third car in a four-vehicle collision. After the accident, he experienced various issues, which included depression, chronic headaches, anxiety, poor memory, emotional problems, trouble sleeping, lack of energy and a fear of driving, to name a few. These issues severely impacted his ability to work, especially since his job required night driving and he was unable to work for an entire year. Despite differing professional opinions on his diagnosis, both experts agreed that his psychological injuries were partially caused by the accident. Court actually found that the plaintiff had pre-existing depression symptoms, but this accident had significantly worsened his condition, linking it to an adjustment disorder that was diagnosed after the accident. His psychologist actually noted that his anxiety levels remained high over a year post the accident, which indicated a lengthy recovery process.

Warren Berg: 34:35

Well, that's brutal. I guess it really goes to show how one brief moment can change your entire life.

Cynthia Carels: 34:41

Yeah, absolutely. These accidents can be devastating. There's another case that we actually quite frequently will cite. It's called Chisholm and Lindsay. That's an Alberta case as well, and in this case, expert evidence confirmed that the plaintiff lost her full-time employability because of an accident, and it was a neuropsychologist who assessed her and found that she'd actually sustained a mild brain injury, amongst other things, and was experiencing a high degree of psychological distress, including anxiety and depression, and this fell within the context of her already having a medical history of anxiety prior to the accident.

Anisa Dattu: 35:22

Yeah, so, warren, there are hundreds and thousands of cases that we could talk about, but we would just be going down the rabbit hole. It might be great for Cynthia and I, but I don't think our viewers really want to go down that rabbit hole with us. It just goes to show how important this injury is and how prevalent it is in cases, despite it being quote-unquote invisible.

Warren Berg: 35:40

This is probably a good time once again to talk about how our listeners can get in touch with you If they need to talk to a lawyer about a personal injury claim, whether it's a motor vehicle accident or medical malpractice or some other type of injury. What is the best way to connect with you?

Cynthia Carels: 35:54

Okay, again, the easiest way to check out our website is we'rebowencom at W-E-I-R-B-O-W-E-Ncom, and on our contact us page you can fill out that form and our reception staff will make sure the inquiry gets to the right place.

Warren Berg: 36:07

And for our listeners who can't access the internet.

Anisa Dattu: 36:10

It's not a problem. We also frequently take what we refer to as cold calls, so just call our main reception line at 780-424-2030 and our receptionist can get you in touch with one of our team members.

Warren Berg: 36:25

This is Ask the Lawyer on Winspeaker Radio, cfwe and CJWE. I'm your host, warren Berg, and stay with us because we're going to be talking a little bit more on Ask the Lawyer with Anissa Datu and Cynthia Carrolls of we're Bowen LLP in Edmonton. Once again, w-e-i-r-l-e B-O-W-E-N 780-424-2030 online at wearebowencom, and we've got Cynthia and Anissa of we Are Bowen LLP in Edmonton with us here today. And, if you're just joining us, we're talking today about psychological and mental health injuries in personal injury law and despite these being quote invisible injuries, they're very real and something that should not be overlooked. I'm curious how these injuries are treated in terms of the limitation period, because we talk about them a lot. I know that in certain claims, they need to be started within a certain time period. Is that true for all psychological and mental health injury claims as well?

Anisa Dattu: 37:27

I'm glad you asked that, Warren. Unfortunately, we have to turn down potential clients when their limitation period has lapsed and sometimes we do have to be the bearers of bad news that's correct.

Anisa Dattu: 37:37

In a common area we're always talking about and assessing is the limitation period. For those who are new to civil law and personal injury law, the limitation period refers to the time frame within which a person must initiate legal proceedings, in other words, formally getting a statement of claim filed at the courthouse. In Alberta. This period is governed by the Limitations Act, so, essentially, if you have a legal claim, you need to start your lawsuit within this specified time period or you might lose your right to do so. It's devastating, because it ensures legal disputes are resolved within a reasonable time frame. It also provides certainty and finality for everyone who's involved, and for plaintiffs, it means that they need to be diligent in pursuing their claims. For defendants, it means that they won't face indefinite uncertainty about potential lawsuits, and it also helps maintain the integrity of evidence, as over time, as we all know, memories fade and documents can be lost.

Warren Berg: 38:35

So what is the standard limitation period in Alberta?

Cynthia Carels: 38:42

The standard limitation period is generally two years from the date a claimant knew or ought to have known about the injury or loss and its connection to the defendant's actions, so this is often referred to as the discovery rule, and additionally, there's also what we call an ultimate limitation period of 10 years from the date of the incident, regardless of when the injury was discovered.

Warren Berg: 38:59

That sounds like a fair and good amount of time, but like a lot of things, I bet there are probably exceptions, am I correct?

Cynthia Carels: 39:05

Yes, you are. Without becoming too technical, there are several exceptions. For instance, if the claimant was a minor at the time, the limitation clock doesn't actually start ticking for them until their 18th birthday. But in connection with our topic today, if a claimant has been left with a cognitive injury and also lacks mental capacity to make legal decisions, that limitation period may actually be extended.

Warren Berg: 39:31

Can you give us an example of how the limitations period might apply in a real case involving mental capacity? Yeah for sure.

Cynthia Carels: 39:37

So let's hypothetically talk about a client, and we'll call her Jane, and Jane was involved in a car accident on January 1st of 2022 in this example, and it actually rendered her unconscious for a few days, and even when she finally came around, she didn't really know where she was at or what happened to her. For a number of weeks, even when her broken bones had sufficiently healed and she was released from hospital, she struggled to manage her activities of daily living. She let her bills lapse and would get lost in her own home, constantly forgetting what she was trying to find. She was having nightmares that impacted her sleep, and the fatigue really took over her life to the point she struggled to get out of bed and she withdrew from all of her favorite activities. Now, initially, she and her family thought this was just the result of the pain meds, but as time went on, the physical pain actually did go away, but things didn't get better.

Cynthia Carels: 40:29

Jane never did return to her usual happy pre-accident self, and instead she was really emotional.

Cynthia Carels: 40:34

She would get angry with people, break down in tears over really trivial things, and she no longer wanted to do the kinds of things that used to bring her pleasure, like you know crossword puzzles and watching TV.

Cynthia Carels: 40:45

Her landlord was complaining because she forgot to pay her rent, and this all started to snowball into severe anxiety and panic attacks that landed her back in hospital, where she was finally diagnosed with post-concussion syndrome and also post-traumatic stress disorder by a psychiatrist. And when she was back at the hospital, the psychiatrist conducted a capacity assessment and confirmed Jane lacked the mental capacity to make personal and financial decisions for herself, and she actually ended up needing to have a family member take over as her guardian and trustee, at least until such time as she was able to get her mental health stabilized. Now, in a case like Jane's, even though the accident happened on our hypothetical date of January 1st 2022, we might be able to argue that that limitation period should be suspended while she was under that disability and lacking the capacity to make a personal and financial decision for herself, which also includes starting a lawsuit.

Warren Berg: 41:39

So, even though the accident happened on January 1st 2022, jane's limitation period in this example might be a totally different date. That's right, exactly, warren. Jane's limitation period in this example might be a totally different date.

Anisa Dattu: 41:48

That's right, exactly, warren. It's important for listeners to understand that the clock on the limitation period does not always start ticking on the day of the accident, even though in most cases it actually does. This is particularly relevant for psychological injuries, because these injuries may not be immediately apparent and they may also disable an individual from taking the necessary steps to bring a case within the standard two-year limitation period.

Warren Berg: 42:12

And in Jane's case, what should she do if she's unsure about the timing of the process?

Cynthia Carels: 42:16

Jane should be seeking legal advice as soon as possible and if she remains under that guardianship and trusteeship order, the person who is actually acting as her guardian and trustee should be reaching out to a lawyer on her behalf, even if they might think that Jane is out of time, it is always better to act quickly to protect your rights, but we would not want anyone to think that they're necessarily out of time or assume that their case is hopeless, especially if they think they missed a limitation period due to a psychological or cognitive injury Exactly.

Anisa Dattu: 42:48

So, just to reiterate, each case is unique and while the general rules are helpful, specific legal advice is essential.

Warren Berg: 42:55

Absolutely so. What do you both see from the other side of these files? In other words, how do the defense lawyers treat psychological injuries for your clients?

Anisa Dattu: 43:05

That's a great question, and I chuckle because we've seen some pretty interesting defenses.

Cynthia Carels: 43:09

Yeah, Some of them less funny than others, but I could go on for days with some of the defenses that we've seen to not only psychological injuries but physical ones as well.

Anisa Dattu: 43:19

But the most obvious one defense is that they simply do not believe that the client is suffering an injury at all.

Warren Berg: 43:25

So let me get this straight you actually have defense lawyers who don't believe your client is suffering an injury at all. So let me get this straight you actually have defense lawyers who don't believe your client is suffering. Do they think that your client is faking it or making things up?

Cynthia Carels: 43:35

Yeah, exactly, I should preface it that not all clients are the same, nor are all defense lawyers.

Anisa Dattu: 43:42

This is true. I find that many clients not all who are truly suffering tend to downplay their symptoms and mental health. On the contrary, the ones who have more of a minor psychological or mental health injury can sometimes become hyper-focused on their injuries and even self-limit their activities as a result.

Cynthia Carels: 44:00

So we understand where the hesitancy from defense counsel comes from when we tell them that our client has a psychological or mental health injury. Having said that, we also know certain documents, witnesses and expert opinions, and even some types of evidence, are going to hold more weight than others with the defense and with the courts.

Anisa Dattu: 44:21

Even some insurance adjusters are fine to deal with the physical injuries that show up on x-rays and MRIs, but they seem to bring their own prejudices and biases to psychological injuries.

Warren Berg: 44:31

So what do you do in those situations?

Cynthia Carels: 44:33

Well, you know, it's really got to depend on the strength of the evidence, but sometimes we can be in for a real fight on these things, and I think the fact that we have two Supreme Court of Canada cases demonstrates how far some plaintiffs may have to go with their psychological claims. However, if we have the evidence to support our clients' injuries, then we're going to do our very best to obtain fair compensation for them, and in most cases, we still can avoid going to prolonged trials, even when we have difficult adjusters and lawyers on the other side. There are a lot of what we call alternative dispute resolution processes that are available to us now, and these kinds of processes tend to be much more tolerable, as well as more accessible, than full-blown trials and appeals to higher courts.

Warren Berg: 45:20

So here's the million-dollar question. What are the numbers? How do you even begin to put a dollar amount on somebody's injuries?

Cynthia Carels: 45:26

Yeah, that's a great question. Within the magic of lawyering, often when people come to us, their primary goal isn't even really framed in terms of money. They're calling us because they want to make sure that whatever happened to them doesn't happen to somebody else. They want accountability from whoever they think it was that caused them harm, and, of course, assigning culpability might be one motive for bringing a claim, but the primary thing that personal injury litigation can offer is a settlement or a judgment for the total value of damages that a person has suffered, and at the end of the day, that does boil down to dollars and cents.

Anisa Dattu: 46:01

And within those dollars and cents the law is seeking to restore an injured person back to the position that they were in before the injury, to the extent that it's possible. Of course the law recognizes that it's impossible to reverse what happened, but to the extent that's possible, damages are supposed to make an injured party quote, unquote, whole again, and as magical as lawyering can be.

Cynthia Carels: 46:24

Unfortunately, we don't have the kind of magic that can actually restore a person's health or bring them back to life or get them back to doing all of the things that they did before their injuries happened. Basically, the only magic we have to work with is much more basic.

Anisa Dattu: 46:38

It's just dollars and cents. That's right. And to understand the numbers which we refer to as damages, we need to understand that there are two overarching categories of damages pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages. So basically, by pecuniary we mean monetary damages that can be mathematically calculated, such as loss of income and cost of care, things that we can put a dollar amount on quite easily, and non-pecuniary damages, which are more subjective and not mathematically calculatable, such putting a value on someone's pain and suffering, for example.

Cynthia Carels: 47:11

Yeah, so pecuniary is just a fancy way of saying it's related to or consisting of, money. Therefore, you know economic losses for very specific things that we can calculate dollar values for, and, conversely, these non-pecuniary damages mean things that are, you know, more general damages for pain and suffering, not economic damages. And pain and suffering damages are compensation for things like your discomfort or that physical anguish from an injury, the loss of enjoyment of life, the loss of expectation of life. So how long you might expect to live, the loss of convenience you know, even for things that might seem trivial on the outside, but you know things like actually being able to get out of the house in the morning, shovel your driveway without ending up in agony and damages for pain and suffering include compensation for these intangible types of things, like someone's inability to participate in their recreational activities and hobbies.

Anisa Dattu: 48:06

It's meant to provide the person with some consolation for their losses and to make life more endurable. It's not meant to be an award based on sympathy or as a tool to punish the wrongdoer, but rather it's intended to replace some pleasure in a plaintiff's life.

Cynthia Carels: 48:22

So, by nature, calculating damages is going to feel like kind of an artificial exercise, because there's no way we can accurately measure pain and suffering using dollars. It's not like there's a market that we can go out to that people are going to bid on the value of somebody's lost ability to pick up their grandkids or, you know, enjoy a hockey game without aggravating their headaches. You know, and it's almost trite to say, that money can't buy happiness. So whatever the number is that we assign to the pain and suffering or that the court's assigned to pain and suffering, it's not actually going to fix the problem or make someone's suffering go away. However, just because something is challenging to calculate or, you know, somewhat artificial, doesn't mean that a court doesn't have to try their best to put a value on it.

Anisa Dattu: 49:07

That's right, and the way that we do that is by looking at precedents, in other words, past cases, like we did previously for our listeners today. All of the lawyers at Weir Bowen are very well versed in legal research. That's required to assess someone's general damages. It involves researching Canadian cases with similar injuries, similarly injured people with similar life circumstances and coming up with a range that the courts have awarded in previous cases.

Cynthia Carels: 49:32

And it's important to contextualize this head of damage because certain injuries will impact different people in different ways. So, for example, seemingly minor injuries can cause great suffering and seemingly major issues might result in little actual suffering. And one example that we like to use a lot as lawyers is the example of a pinky finger on a non-dominant hand. So while this might seem relatively minor in comparison to other, more serious types of injuries, an injury like that is going to have a far greater impact, let's say, on a world famous pianist who makes their money by playing the piano. It's going to be a much bigger deal for them than just a general member of the public that doesn't rely on their pinky finger terribly heavily.

Cynthia Carels: 50:28

the picture of how the person as an individual was impacted by their physical injury, as well as the psychological injury of, you know, maybe not being able to play as well or even play, you know at all, confirming that realization, that everything that they worked for is now not going to be possible in the same manner as before.

Warren Berg: 50:41

So what type of numbers are we looking at for pain and suffering damages for or non-pecuniary pecuniary damages?

Anisa Dattu: 50:48

Well, to answer that question, warren, we have to go all the way back to the late 70s, where the Supreme Court of Canada decided to implement a 100,000 upper limit on pain and suffering damages. This is in a series of cases that we call in the legal circles as the trilogy these cases. It's three cases that involved catastrophically injured young people, and if you actually read these cases, the victim stories are all devastating and in addition to the serious physical injuries, the psychological trauma was also very relevant in these cases. With the trilogy cases, the Supreme Court decided to set, like I said, a 100,000 upper limit for pain and suffering as a result of some policy-related concerns. They were witnessing the way litigation culture was trending in the United States and the astronomically sized awards which we hear about all the time from our clients. They decided Canada needed to go in a different direction for several reasons.

Cynthia Carels: 51:49

And while we don't have time for all of those reasons, thankfully the pain and suffering damages awards that they assessed in the 1970s have kept up with inflation. So in the late 1970s when this cap was introduced it was $100,000. And when we present value that to today, the cap is now around $450,000 as that high watermark. So that is generally regarded as the highest amount that someone can get for their pain and suffering in Canada and obviously the higher end is reserved for those with the most catastrophic injuries.

Anisa Dattu: 52:23

Now keep in mind this cap actually only applies to pain and suffering or non-pecuniary damages.

Warren Berg: 52:28

Okay, so let's talk about pecuniary damages.

Anisa Dattu: 52:31

Well, there are many different categories to talk about, so I'll focus on a few. The main categories we deal with are an injured person's loss of income or their loss of reining capacity, their loss of the ability to perform housekeeping, their out-of-pocket expenses, the cost of the treatment and care that they require, both in the past and the cost of treatments that they were expected to require in the future, and oftentimes, when someone is injured physically, psychologically or both it's going to impact all facets of their life, and there are many different aspects that we need to look at to make sure the compensation we're asking for is appropriate.

Cynthia Carels: 53:07

So one of the biggest ways someone is impacted is obviously in their inability to perform their regular duties at work, and some people have to take time away to recover or undergo surgeries or rehabilitation, and some people can no longer perform you know physical labor due to their pain. Some people can't maintain static positioning for lengthy periods of time, and in other cases, some people will suffer debilitating depression and anxiety where they can't leave their houses or get into a vehicle, let alone focus on a task at hand, and so there are all sorts of ways that someone's ability to earn an income can be impacted by their injuries.

Anisa Dattu: 53:43

Ooh, that's spot on, Cynthia, because some people are left with such terrible fatigue they can only work part-time or they're forced to change careers entirely. There are many different ways to try and measure this loss, and sometimes it depends on what type of working arrangement the plaintiff had prior to their injury.

Cynthia Carels: 53:59

So that's the loss of income.

Cynthia Carels: 54:01

That's a clearly calculatable pecuniary loss. One of the other areas of damage under pecuniary damages categories are for things like the loss of one's ability to maintain their house or their yard. So this means the ability to perform household tasks like mopping, vacuuming, mowing the lawn, grocery shopping, preparing meals and all of that, and we can make a claim depending on the level of the inability someone has to perform these tasks, and even if there is somebody else helping out, in both a paid or an unpaid manner. But one challenge is actually quantifying the value of the household work that the plaintiff can't perform, but thankfully we do have case law to guide us for that, and we can put now market value on that kind of work. Another challenge, though, is proving that the inability to perform these tasks is directly related to the injury and not due to other factors like age or those pre-existing conditions that we talked about. So in cases like that, expert testimony, such as from occupational therapists, can be really crucial in overcoming these challenges and putting that dollar value on it.

Warren Berg: 55:07

So what about all of the money that people might have to unexpectedly spend after an accident for things like crutches or ambulance bills, or even replacing their glasses if those get broken in an accident Happens?

Cynthia Carels: 55:17

all the time.

Anisa Dattu: 55:18

Yeah, and that's another category that we can claim for, simply called out-of-pocket expenses, or we also call it special damages. These are specific expenses and financial losses, like you said, Warren, that can be directly linked to the incident, such as medical bills, mileage for travel, parking expenses and property damage. These damages are intended to restore the plaintiff to the financial position that they would have been in had this injury not occurred, and this helps to ensure that the plaintiff is not left out of pocket due to someone else's negligence plaintiff is not left out of pocket due to someone else's negligence.

Warren Berg: 55:52

I would imagine that someone with these types of concerns might also have significant care needs that carry a hefty price tag too.

Cynthia Carels: 55:56

Yeah, absolutely Calculating that cost of care is very important to make sure that our clients are going to have access to what they will need for treatment and supports both during that period while they're recovering as well as into the future, and that can really add up. So a plaintiff is entitled to claim for any expenses that they incurred to meet their accident-related care needs after the accident. So things like home care, physio, psychotherapies, wheelchairs and many other types of expenses that the injured person incurred in the aftermath of their accident that they otherwise wouldn't have needed to spend.

Anisa Dattu: 56:29

Yep. And then we also have to forecast what medical needs a person will have going into the future. So we don't forget about that, because our prime focus here is to make sure that the plaintiff has adequate care for as long as they need it due to their specific injuries, even after their lawsuit has resolved. So, when it comes to things like wheelchairs or other assistive devices, we even want to make sure that our clients will have enough money to repair and replace those tools, because, as we know, nothing lasts forever.

Warren Berg: 56:55

This is quite a deep dive already, but I'm curious, and I'm sure our listeners are as well. What if the plaintiff is a child or a young person who is not working yet? How does this apply to them, especially if they have an injury that might permanently reduce their job prospects?

Anisa Dattu: 57:11

It can definitely be challenging to predict. It's a lot easier to do when someone has an education Someone's just older, right, they have an education, they're working or they have an income earning history and you can plot their trajectory going forward. But it's still possible to value the loss when someone has no earning history, like a young infant, for example.

Cynthia Carels: 57:36

Yeah, actually many of Weir Bowen's clients involve infant plaintiffs who've never started school, let alone worked. So the best crystal ball we have to work with is Canadian statistics and in those cases we're going to be looking at all sorts of collateral evidence to help us put together an argument for what that child's most likely education and career path would have been when framed through the education levels and career paths of the child's parents, their siblings, other close relatives.

Cynthia Carels: 57:58

So we're going to be looking at where they live what sort of access they might have had to post-secondary education and, of course, even market factors to predict what kind of a job that person might likely have had over their lifetime. These predictions aren't going to be perfect. Obviously Nobody's got an actual crystal ball to do this, but in our job in these cases it's to establish some trajectories that are at least more likely than not, given that individual's particular circumstances.

Warren Berg: 58:28

Wow, who knew there was going to be so much to talk about when it comes to psychological injuries and personal injury law?

Cynthia Carels: 58:33

Yeah, no, it's a lot. It definitely is, and it seems like our understanding in this crucial topic tends to continuously evolve, both in the medical world as well as the legal one. But hopefully the takeaway today and from today's show is that psychological injuries are real and they can definitely impact a person's life, and it is important for everyone to understand they do have legal rights for psychological injuries and also they need to be aware of the legal processes involved.

Anisa Dattu: 59:05

Absolutely so. Remember if you or someone you know is dealing with injuries due to an accident, including psychological injuries, seeking legal advice early on can make a huge difference.

Warren Berg: 59:18

Detailed records and professional support are key in these cases episode of Ask the Lawyer with our sponsor, we're Bowen LLP in Edmonton, and we look forward to learning much more through this series, which continues to take place here on CFWE and CJWE on the last Saturday of every month, and our special thanks today once again to Cynthia Carroll and Anissa Datu for joining me in studio. If you would like to learn more information, you can visit their website we'rebowencom. That's W-E-I-R-B-O-W-E-Ncom, phone number 780-424-2030. You can also find a link to Ask the Lawyer on our radio station homepages, where these shows will be available to stream on demand. Thanks for coming out.

Anisa Dattu: 1:00:04

Thank you. Thank you so much.