In 7-Eleven Canada Inc. v Tommy, 2025 BCCA 220, the British Columbia Court of Appeal considered the legal principles surrounding causation and divisible injuries. Where divisible injuries combine to cause damages, even damages that overlap, the court must engage in the difficult task of assessing the damages associated with each injury. In 7-Eleven, the trial judge failed to consider whether the claimant’s deterioration of mental health flowed from injuries sustained in the accident. Because the trial judge did not make sufficient findings of fact to determine the issue, a new trial was ordered.

Background

In 2018, Ms. Tommy fractured her ankle after stepping into a pothole in 7-Eleven’s parking lot. She spent 8-9 weeks off work and was left with a permanent limp. 7-Eleven was found liable for the fall at trial, which they did not dispute on appeal. Later in that same year, Ms. Tommy fell while descending a staircase and hurt her back. The trial judge found that her subsisting ankle injury contributed to the second fall and, as a result, 7-Eleven was also responsible for her back injury.

In November 2020, she lost control of her vehicle in icy conditions and suffered shoulder, elbow, and abdominal injuries. These new injuries, which were deemed unrelated to the original trip and fall, caused substantial health complications including development of an ovarian cyst and two hernias.

At trial, family and friends provided oral evidence comparing Ms. Tommy’s pre-fall and current mental state – she was characterized as previously being a “happy person” who was fulfilled through her work, to one who is now “sad and depressed”. Relying upon the oral evidence of her family and friends, the trial judge held that Ms. Tommy was entitled to compensation for mental distress, depression, and unhappiness she experienced since the trip and fall, which factored into the court’s assessment of non-pecuniary and future loss of earning capacity damages. Critically, she did not rely on evidence of Ms. Tommy’s mental state between the fall and accident or identify the ankle or back injuries as material contributors to Ms. Tommy’s mental distress.

7-Eleven appealed on the grounds the trial judge failed to address whether the mental health injuries were a consequence of non-compensable causes.

Issue

Did the judge improperly attribute Ms. Tommy’s mental health injuries to the injuries caused by 7-Eleven?

Test

A tortfeasor is responsible for both the immediate injury stemming from their wrongful actions as well as its natural consequences, so long as the consequences are not too remote. Where divisible injuries combine to cause damages, even damages that overlap, the court must engage in the difficult task of assessing the damages associated with each injury.

Decision

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge committed an error of law by failing to engage in a causation analysis with respect to Ms. Tommy’s mental health issues. Specifically, the trial judge treated Ms. Tommy’s mental health issues as indivisible consequences of the original ankle injury without a supporting finding of fact. 

Based on the trial record, it appeared Ms. Tommy’s mental distress was predominantly attributable to the November 2020 accident and her workplace absence. There was also some evidence of mental health effects on the claimant following the trip and fall. The Court of Appeal was not in a position to re-assess damages in the absence of findings of fact that could inform a just apportionment between compensable and non-compensable damages, and a new trial was ordered.

Takeaways

Both adjusters and defence counsel should be aware that secondary incidents flowing from claimants’ immediate injuries can be considered sufficiently connected to the wrongful act to be compensable – in 7-Eleven, the tortfeasor was liable for both the ankle injury caused by the trip and fall and the subsequent staircase incident causing back injury, even though the incidents occurred months apart.

Defence counsel should examine claimants carefully, both at questioning and trial, to establish causation of injuries where there are multiple incidents with divisible injuries. This can lead to early settlement opportunities and avoid unnecessary costs, including re-trials.