Can Psychiatrists Be Liable to a Patient’s Family? Ontario Court of Appeal Weighs In
A recent decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that psychiatrists treating a patient with known violent tendencies may indeed owe a duty of care to the family members of a patient.
McKee v. Lorberg and Shahid, 2025 ONCA 666, has a tragic set of facts: Bradley McKee, a 27-year-old man with a long history of addiction and mental illness, fatally stabbed his father in 2019. His mother, Anna McKee, brought a negligence claim against two of Bradley’s psychiatrists, alleging that they failed to properly treat Bradley and failed to warn the family of the danger he posed.
The defendant psychiatrists successfully moved for an order striking Ms. McKee’s claim. The motions judge found that the claim for negligence in treating Bradley did not disclose a reasonable cause of action, as any duty of care they allegedly owed to Bradley’s parents would conflict with the duty of care owed to Bradley. The judge also found that the failure-to-warn claim lacked sufficient detail, but allowed it to be amended.
Ms. McKee appealed the decision to strike the treatment-based negligence claim. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the question of whether a duty of care could be owed to Bradley’s parents should not be decided at the pleadings stage.
The Court acknowledged that a duty of care owed to a patient’s family was not an established category of duty of care, but found that the claim was not “doomed to fail.” It emphasised that the proximity (i.e. connection) between the psychiatrists and Bradley’s parents—who had actively communicated concerns and lived with Bradley—could support a finding that a duty of care existed.
The psychiatrists argued that allowing the claim to proceed could have a “chilling effect” on psychiatric care, since concern for a patient’s family could result in psychiatrists being overly cautious in their treatment of patients. The Court found this policy concern was speculative, and that it was better addressed on a full evidentiary record.
Implications for Health Professionals
This decision underscores the importance of careful documentation and risk assessment when treating patients, particularly those with known violent tendencies. It also highlights the potential for liability beyond the patient-physician relationship, particularly where third parties are at foreseeable risk.
Health professionals should be aware that courts may be willing to entertain claims from non-patients in specific, high-risk scenarios. While the duty of care to third parties remains a developing area of law, this case signals that such claims may proceed to trial where the facts support a close and foreseeable relationship.
If you’re a health professional with questions about how this decision might affect your practice or your duty of care obligations, contact us.
