Woman who sued based on her son’s stabbing of his father alleges failure to warn family
The Ontario Court of Appeal held that a mother’s action alleging negligence on the part of two psychiatrists who treated her son, who wound up stabbing his father, deserved a proper evidentiary record because it was not doomed to fail.
In McKee v. Shahid, 2025 ONCA 666, the appellant’s then 27-year-old son, who had a history of serious addiction and mental health issues, fatally stabbed the appellant’s husband in February 2019.
The appellant filed a negligence action against two psychiatrists, the respondents in this case. She claimed that they negligently treated the son and failed to warn her and her late husband of the danger he posed to them.
One of the psychiatrists started treating the patient in August 2016 and served as his primary treating psychiatrist at the time of the tragedy, while the other discharged the son from Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care in December 2018. They both moved to strike the appellant’s action.
In August 2024, Justice R. Cary Boswell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck the negligent treatment claim without leave to amend upon finding that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, given that the duty of care the respondents owed to the son would conflict with the duty they allegedly owed to his parents.
The motion judge struck the claim for failure to warn with leave to amend upon determining that the claim did not plead enough material facts.
On appeal, the appellant challenged the order striking her negligent treatment claim without permission to amend. She alleged that the judge made errors in finding no established duty of care and conducting his Anns/Cooper analysis, particularly his determination that the duty of care the respondents owed to the son would conflict with the proposed duty they owed to his parents.
Negligent treatment claim restored
The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, upheld the striking of the claim for failure to warn with leave to amend, but dismissed the rest of the respondents’ motion to dismiss. The appeal court awarded the appellant $35,000 in all-inclusive appeal costs.
The appeal court ruled that the Anns/Cooper analysis did not lead to the conclusion that the negligent treatment claim was doomed for failure. The appeal court addressed the first stage of foreseeability and proximity.
Regarding foreseeability, the appeal court agreed with the motion judge that it was reasonably foreseeable that a treating psychiatrist’s failure to diligently and prudently care for a mentally ill patient with violent tendencies might cause harm to those close to the patient, especially family members with whom they lived.
As for proximity, the appeal court said there was arguably a relationship of proximity between the respondents and the patient’s parents. The appeal court noted that:
- The respondents were not strangers to the parents
- The parents belonged to a small category of individuals whom the respondents knew might be subject to harm due to the patient’s violent tendencies
- The parents could reasonably expect and rely on the respondents to treat their son, including through a long-term psychiatric placement, to reduce the risk of violence against them
Regarding the second stage of residual policy considerations, the appeal court said it should have the benefit of a complete and proper evidentiary record before it could determine that imposing the proposed private law duty of care on psychiatrists would have a chilling effect on psychiatrists or those pursuing psychiatric help, rather than ruling on the issue based on the pleadings.
Next, the appeal court acknowledged that the judge misstated the outcome in Ahmed v. Stefaniu, 2006 CanLII 34973 (ON CA).
However, the appeal court agreed with the judge that this precedent did not establish that a treating psychiatrist owed a duty of care to a patient’s family if the patient threatened and showed signs of violence toward family members.
Ultimately, though, the appeal court concluded that it should decide the issue of a conflict between the duty owed to the son and the duty allegedly owed to his parents based on a full evidentiary record, rather than on a motion to strike.
Given this conclusion, the appeal court deemed it unnecessary to tackle the appellant’s request to amend her action to add a claim based on the loss of companionship and support from her son under Ontario’s Family Law Act, 1990.
