"Thin Skull" Damages into "Crumbling Skull" Damages - Bogoroch ...

How Canadian Courts Have Turned “Thin Skull” Damages
into “Crumbling Skull” Damages:
What are the Implications
Richard M. Bogoroch and Tripta S. Chandler
Bogoroch & Associates
7. Introduction
The Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling in Athey v. Leonati 1 is a definitive commentary on the
manner in which liability and damages should be apportioned in tort actions. The Court discusses
a myriad of possible scenarios in which tortious and non-tortious factors, pre-existing conditions and
subsequent incidents may contribute to a plaintiff’s ultimate condition following a tortious act. The
Court also addresses the difficult and often misunderstood issue of damage awards in cases involving
thin skull and crumbling skull plaintiffs.
This paper deals with the principles established in the Athey decision and their implications in the
areas of causation and damages. The paper begins with a detailed analysis of the Athey case and then
discusses the implications of the decision in determining liability in the case of tortious and nontortious
factors contributing to a plaintiff’s injury, and the judicial treatment of the Athey decision
in this context, with a particular focus on thin skull and crumbling skull plaintiffs. The final sections
of the paper are a commentary on the courts’ assessment of damages in two recent decisions, the
1 Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458 (QL) [hereinafter Athey].