At Trial, Read J. held that the Defendant did not negligently or intentionally cause the Plaintiff mental suffering either through its behaviour or in the manner of the Plaintiff’s dismissal from employment. Further, it was not reasonably foreseeable to the Defendant that its actions in dismissing the Plaintiff would cause the Plaintiff mental distress.

At paragraph 200 of the written Judgment, Read J. considered the question of whether the social worker who diagnosed the Plaintiff as suffering from PTSD was properly qualified to give opinion evidence of that diagnosis. After finding that the social worker was only qualified as an expert in social work with clinical experience in the treatment and trauma of PTSD, the Plaintiff argued that the scope of the social worker’s qualification could be expanded by use of the “slip rule” found in the Rules. It was argued that failure to qualify the social worker as an expert in the diagnosis of PTSD was an accidental omission that could be cured by the Rules; however, Counsel was unable to cite the exact Rule number relied on. Read J. noted that the only Rule that fit the definition of a “slip rule” is Rule 9.12; however, this Rule only applies to Judgments and Orders, not procedural steps at Trial. Based on this, Read J. held that the “slip rule” did not assist the Plaintiff’s argument to expand the social worker’s qualification.