Malicious Prosecution - Working Group 2008

FOOTNOTES

[1] The Working Group consists of the following members: Alberta: Kate Bridgett, Sarah Dafoe, Tim Hurlburt; Canada: Michel F. Denis, Robert Frater; Manitoba: Lynn Romeo, Robin Finlayson; Ontario: Erin Winocur, Michele Smith, Bill Manuel, Judy Mungovan (Chair); Quebec: Michel Breton; Saskatchewan: Darcy McGovern, Dean Sinclair; and ULCC/CHLC: Clark Dalton.

[2] Nelles v. Ontario [1989], 2 S.C.R. 170.

[3] Miazga v. Kvello Estate, [2007] S.J. No. 247, leave to appeal was granted on February 7, 2008. As of July 15, 2008, only the Attorney General for Nova Scotia has sought leave to intervene in the appeal although motions by other Attorneys General are expected to seek leave imminently.

[4] (1976), 30 C.C.C. (2d) 424 at 427 (S.C.C.)

[5] Folland v. Ontario, (2003), 64 O.R. (3d) 89.

[6] Nelles, at para 55.

[7] R. v. Power [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601.

[8] Power, at para. 34 repeating Powell J.’s comments in Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598.

[9] Ferri v. Ontario, (2007), 279 D.L.R. (4th) 643.

[10] Proulx v. Quebec, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 9.

[11] The Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure, and Resolution, (Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, 1993) (“Martin Report”) at 71-73.

[12] Miazga, at para. 228.

[13] Miazga, at para 132.

[14] Campbell v. A.G. of Ontario (1987), 31 C.C.C. (3d) 289; aff'd. 35 C.C.C. (3d) 480 (C.A.). The court cannot review a decision by the Attorney General to stay a private prosecution, absent flagrant impropriety.

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