In the case of Fidler v.Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada,[2006] 2 S.C.R.3.,the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the traditional view that damages for mental distress should be tightly controlled and exceptional and asked instead,"What did the contract promise?" Which of the following represents the answer the court arrived at with respect to that question?
A) Damages arise from lack of provision of a psychological benefit.
B) Damages arising from mental distress should be tightly controlled.
C) Damage awards should be a benefit of a personal nature.
D) Damages arising from mental distress should be exceptional.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The court determined that damages could arise from the lack of provision of a psychological benefit, as the contract promised such a benefit.

In the Case of Fidler V