Malicious Prosecution
The test for malicious prosecution is set out in Miazga v. Kvello Estate, 2009 SCC
51, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 339. The plaintiff must prove that:
(1)
the prosecution was initiated by the defendant;
(2) it
was terminated in the plaintiff's favour;
·
This
requirement precludes a collateral attack on a conviction properly rendered by
a criminal court, and thus avoids conflict between civil and criminal justice.
·
where the
termination does not result from an adjudication on the merits, a live issue
may arise whether the termination of the proceedings was “in favour” of the
plaintiff: See Ferri v. Ontario
(2007) 2007 ONCA 79
(CanLII), ONCA 79, [2007] OJ No. 397 per LaForme
J.A., at paras. 50-58
(3) there was an absence of reasonable and
probable cause to commence the prosecution;
·
s. 108(10) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, provides
that it is for the trier of fact to determine whether there was reasonable and
probable cause for instituting the prosecution.
·
prior
judicial determinations made during criminal proceedings may support a finding
by a civil court that there existed reasonable and probable cause for an
impugned criminal prosecution, though they are not necessarily determinative.
(4) the defendant's conduct in setting the
criminal process in motion was fueled by malice.
·
malice
cannot be inferred from a Crown Attorney’s decision to proceed with a
prosecution in the absence of reasonable and probable cause; malice must be
established by proof of an “improper purpose.”
·
a plaintiff
must demonstrate on the totality of the evidence that the prosecutor
deliberately intended to subvert or abuse the office of the Attorney General or
the process of criminal justice such that he or she exceeded the boundaries of
the office of the Attorney General.
Stuart O’Connell, O’Connell Law Group, www.leadersinlaw.ca
Comments
Post a Comment