Malicious Prosecution Report 2007

FOOTNOTES

[1] [1989], 2 S.C.R. 170, at para. 52

[2] [2007] S.J. No. 247 (C.A.).

[3] R.S.O. 1990, c. P-27.

[4] Per Lamer J. in Nelles.

[5] Paquette v. Desrochers, [2000] O.J. No. 5061 (S.C.J.); aff’d [2001] O.J. No. 4560 (C.A.).

[6] Rule 21.01(1)(b) allows the Court on motion to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action. However, no evidence is admissible on such a motion although the court is entitled to consider documents referred to and relied upon in the pleadings.

[7] Rule 20 authorizes the Court to grant summary judgment dismissing the action if it is satisfied that there is no genuine issue for trial. Affidavit material is relied upon a well as cross-examinations and other material.

[8] Nelles, at para. 52-3.

[9] Nelles. at para. 50.

[10] Proulx v Quebec (Attorney General), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 9 at para. 45 (quoting Nelles).

[11] Nelles, at para. 43.

[12] John G. Fleming, The Law of Torts, 7th ed. (Law Book Co., Sydney: 1987) at p. 582.

[13] [2005] O.J. No. 136 (S.C.J.).

[14] [1997] O.J. No. 3343 (S.C.J.).

[15] John G. Fleming, The Law of Torts, 9th ed. (LBC Information Services, Sydney: 1998) at p. 677.

[16] [2002] O.J. No. 2765 (S.C.J.).

[17] [2001] O.J. No. 1850 (S.C.J.).

[18] (1989), 77 Sask. R. 161.

[19] Ibid.

[20] [2001] O.J. No. 2434 (S.C.J.), aff’d [2002] O.J. No. 383 (C.A.).

[21] Wilson, at para. 27.

[22] [2007] O.J. No. 397 (C.A.)

[23] See for example Bond v. Ontario, [2002] O.J. No. 3499 at para. 26 (S.C.J.).

[24] Romegialli v. Marceau, [1964] 1 O.R. 407 (C.A.).

[25] Baxter v. Gordon Ironsides & Fares Co. (1907), 13 O.L.R. 598 (Div. Ct.).

[26] [2004] O.J. No. 5284 (S.C.J.).

[27] [2003] S.J. No. 317 (S.C.Q.B.).

[28] [2002] O.J. No. 1390 (S.C.J.).

[29] Ferri, at para. 53.

[30] Ferri, at para. 54.

[31] Ferri, at para. 55.

[32] The Martin Report, at pp. 31-33.

[33] The Martin Report, at p. 77.

[34] (1878), 8 Q.B.D. 167, at p. 171, per Hawkins J.

[35] John Sopinka, “Malicious Prosecution: Invasion of Charter Interests”, 74 Can. Bar. Rev. 366 at 367.

[36] The Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure, and Resolution, (Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto: 1993) (“The Martin Report”) at p. 74.

[37] Ferri, at para. 74

[38] Ferri, at para. 151.

[39] Ferri, at paras. 113-118..

[40] The Martin Report (pp. 51-52) outlined the variances in the threshold test across Canada; it is not uniform. The test in Ontario is “reasonable prospect of conviction”. In British Columbia, it is “substantial likelihood of conviction”. In Quebec, counsel must be “reasonably satisfied” a conviction can be obtained. In New Brunswick, it is a “reasonable prospect of conviction”. In Alberta, it is “reasonable likelihood of conviction”. In Nova Scotia, it is “reasonable chance of conviction”. In Newfoundland, it is “probability of conviction”. All of these thresholds, however, point to an objective rather than a subjective standard for Crown attorney to follow.

[41] The Martin Report, at p. 72 – also note the comments of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Response of the Newfoundland Criminal Justice System to Complaints (1992), which spoke of the inherent danger of Crowns weighing evidence:

The image the is conjured up – is one of arrogating to the Crown the function of the court, weighing the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses and, particularly in a jury trial anticipating what properly instructed jurors, all laymen by law, may decide as sole judges of the facts.

[42] The Martin Report, at pp. 70-71.

[43] The Martin Report, at p.71.

[44] The Martin Report, at p.68.

[45] [2002] 3 S.C.R. 372 at para. 49.

[46] [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601.

[47] Power, at para. 34.

[48] Power, at para. 12.

[49] Nelles at para. 45.

[50] Proulx, at para. 45

[51] Proulx, at para. 35.

[52] [2001] O.J. No. 90 (C.A.).

[53] Oniel, at paras. 81-85.

[54] Oniel, at paras. 49-60.

[55] Oniel, at para. 78.

[56] The different roles played by police and the Crown in the justice system are further highlighted in the Ontario Court of Appeal decision Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board. In Hill, the court considered the policy rationale for extending the tort of negligence to police, and determined that police owe a duty of care to suspects pursuant to their statutory duties to conduct proper criminal investigations.

[57] [2002] A.J. No. 784 (Alta. Q.B.).

[58] Dix, at paras. 526-528.

[59] [2002] O.J. No. 2977.

[60] Mazumder, at para. 45.

[61] [2002] O.J. No. 4111 (S.C.J.), aff’d [2003] O.J. No.4407 (C.A.).

[62] [2006] O.J. No. 2820 (S.C.J.); leave to appeal dismissed [2006] O.J. No. 4349.

[63] The Martin Report, at p. 58.

[64] [2007] S.C.C.A. No. 175

[65] 2007 MBQB 142 (June 13, 2007).

[66] [2003] O.J. No. 1048 (C.A.); leave to appeal to SCC denied [2003] S.C.C.A. 249

[67] [2004] B.C.J. No. 1718.

[67] It should be noted that the Alberta Rules of Court are currently undergoing a review; it is proposed to drop the five-year period to a two-year, with certain exceptions.

Next Annual Meeting

2017 Conference

Hotel Saskatchewan

Regina, SK

August 13 - 17, 2017
Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Canada License
L'usage de cette œuvre est autorisé selon les dispositions de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Canada