Divisible v Indivisible Injuries: Guidance From The B.C. Court Of Appeal In 7-Eleven Canada Inc. v Tommy, 2025 BCCA 220

In tort cases involving multiple injuries, it can be difficult to parse out which injuries were caused by the original tort. This assessment can be further complicated where mental health injuries result subsequent to the tort, leading to a question of whether the mental health injuries are a divisible or indivisible consequence of the initial wrongdoing.

The distinction between "divisible" and "indivisible" injuries was recently reviewed by the B.C. Court of Appeal in 7-Eleven Canada Inc. v Tommy, 2025 BCCA 220 (Tommy).

The Plaintiff tripped over a pothole in a 7-Eleven parking lot, leading to multiple ankle fractures. She was unable to work for 8-9 weeks, developed a permanent limp, and experienced ongoing swelling. Later that year, she fell on the stairs and sustained a back injury. Several years afterward, she was involved in a vehicle accident that caused multiple injuries, a hernia, and she had to undergo ovarian cyst removal surgery. She further claimed to have ongoing mental health issues, including depression and distress, stemming from the initial ankle fracture.

The Trial Judge held the Defendant liable and awarded the Plaintiff damages associated with her ankle, back, and mental health injuries. The Judge treated the injury to the Plaintiff's mental health as an indivisible injury, resulting as a consequence of the original ankle injury that occurred at 7-Eleven, and not a divisible consequence of the various physical injuries and circumstances she subsequently experienced.

The B.C. Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the trial judgment, and ordered a new trial. The Court held that the Trial Judge committed a legal error by treating the mental health injuries as indivisible consequences of the original ankle injury without conducting a proper causation analysis.

In tort law, an indivisible injury is one where the harm cannot be separated between different causes or responsible parties. However, the B.C. Court of Appeal emphasized that this concept only applies when it is truly impossible to distinguish the contribution of each cause.

The Court of Appeal held that the Trial Judge:

• Failed to examine whether the Plaintiff's mental health injuries stemmed from compensable causes (the original ankle injury and/or the back injury) versus non-compensable causes (injuries from her subsequent car accident and surgery, financial stress, etc.);
• Failed to determine whether the Plaintiff's ankle or back injuries materially contributed to her mental health injuries; and
• Lacked the necessary factual findings to support inclusion of mental health consequences in the damages assessment.

The ruling reiterates core tort law principles: divisible injuries–those traceable to distinct causes–must be apportioned appropriately.

The decision in Tommy provides the following key takeaways to consider when assessing mental health injuries in a case with multiple, temporally separate injuries:

• Mental health damages require a proper causal link to the defendant's alleged wrongdoing.
• Where multiple injuries affect mental well-being, the Court must explicitly assess divisibility rather than assume a monolithic causal chain.
• Mental health injuries are not automatically attributable to the original tort if other causes may be at play.
• Losses are divisible where it is possible to tease out independent chains of causation.
• A clear factual foundation and causal reasoning are essential before awarding mental health damages linked to a particular tort.