Party in battery case says family physician is unqualified to provide medical opinion on mental health
In a case alleging assault and battery, the Alberta Court of Justice rejected allegations that a medical doctor lacked qualifications to diagnose and treat mental health issues or engaged in malpractice and negligence by prescribing medication for anxiety, depression, and PTSD.
In Layeghpour v Deederly, 2025 ABCJ 150, the parties executed an agreement for the plaintiff to lease a room in the defendant’s home for a year, beginning Dec. 6, 2022.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant committed the tort of battery or assault against him several times in the lease’s first month.
On Jan. 3, 2023, the parties signed a settlement agreement providing that the plaintiff would refrain from bringing a criminal case alleging sexual assault if the defendant paid $16,000. Under one condition, further alleged assaults against the plaintiff would void the settlement agreement.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant assaulted him on Jan. 6, 2023. He sought general, special, aggravated, and punitive damages from the defendant for assault or battery.
The defendant countered that the settlement agreement lacked force or effect because the plaintiff coerced him into signing it. He requested general, special, aggravated, and punitive damages from the plaintiff.
The defendant asserted that the plaintiff’s actions left him shocked and terrified to stay home and made him keep a bat under his bed.
Evidence from Dr. Jackson – the defendant’s family physician, acting as fact witness and expert witness – supported his allegations that he suffered anxiety and PTSD and received medication.
The plaintiff accepted Dr. Jackson’s qualifications as an expert in family medicine with experience in mental health and PTSD.
However, the plaintiff challenged Dr. Jackson’s medical competence regarding the treatment protocol prescribed for the defendant. He argued that Dr. Jackson:
- was not a psychologist
- had no authority to prescribe PTSD medication
- engaged in medical malpractice and negligence by prescribing PTSD medication
- might worsen the defendant’s mental distress by issuing an incorrect prescription
Defendant wins damages
The Alberta Court of Justice entirely dismissed the plaintiff’s civil claim, including all requests for damages. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove his claim for assault and battery.
The court awarded the defendant $15,000 in general damages and $5,000 in punitive damages. The court held that the defendant established that the plaintiff intentionally caused him emotional distress.
The court made findings on the balance of probabilities, the standard of proof in a civil claim. The court found that the plaintiff’s actions resulted in visible and provable negative psychological impacts on the defendant.
The court found that the plaintiff’s allegations of Dr. Jackson’s lack of qualifications to diagnose and treat the defendant’s mental health issues were erroneous and insulting, while the plaintiff’s claims that the doctor engaged in malpractice and negligence by prescribing medication for the defendant’s anxiety, depression, and PTSD were preposterous.
The court noted that Dr. Jackson:
- served as the defendant’s family physician for more than a decade
- diagnosed the defendant with a mental illness, including anxiety, panic attacks, general depression, and PTSD, due to the plaintiff’s accusing him of sexual assault and forcing him to sign the settlement agreement
- did not attribute this diagnosis to the defendant’s divorce 25 years ago or his consumption of alcohol
The court added that Dr. Jackson testified that the effects of the defendant’s experience with the plaintiff would stay with him for the remainder of his life, though the active symptoms might ebb and flow.
The court found that Dr. Jackson clearly and understandably explained:
- how PTSD could come and go in one’s life based on whether something triggered a re-experience of the thoughts causing the stress
- PTSD symptoms such as flashbacks, sleeplessness, and avoidance
- the medical treatment he prescribed for the defendant
- his protocol for following that medical treatment to decide the proper dosage per patient
The court concluded that Dr. Jackson gave honest, credible, and reliable evidence and offered professional expert insights into the effects of the plaintiff’s actions on the defendant.
