Digest: "A" v R, 2018 SKQB 103

• Date: April 03, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 103

Docket Number: QB 490/13 JCS , QB17489

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-04-03

Judges:

• Danyliuk

Subjects:

• Civil Procedure � Pleadings � Statement of Claim � Application to Strike
• Civil Procedure � Queen�s Bench Rules, Rule 7-5, Rule 7-9
• Torts � Malicious Prosecution

Digest: The plaintiff (A) brought an action for damages against a number of defendants, including his former wife (B) and Saskatchewan. The claim was based on the tort of malicious prosecution. The plaintiff discontinued against B. The defendant Attorney General for Saskatchewan brought an application to strike the plaintiff�s claim against it or, alternatively, summary judgment in its favour. A and B had been engaged in a lengthy, acrimonious custody battle following their separation in 2007. The alleged cause of action arose as a result of an allegation made by the then 11-year-old daughter of the plaintiff of sexual impropriety by him. The RCMP believed charges were warranted against the plaintiff and referred the matter to the Crown prosecutor for review. She determined that the charges would be in order. The RCMP then arrested the plaintiff and charged him with six offences under s. 151, s. 153(1), s. 172, s. 173(2), s. 271 and s. 279(2) of the Criminal Code. He was released on an undertaking. The plaintiff�s lawyer informed another Crown prosecutor in the same office that the charges were ill-founded and were motivated by the child custody battle. When the Crown finally obtained disclosure of the investigation from the RCMP, another prosecutor was handling the file. As she acknowledged that she had a conflict of interest regarding the matter, she instructed that another prosecutor take over. The prosecutor who then took carriage of the file reviewed the file, determined that there was no reasonable likelihood of obtaining a conviction against A, and directed a stay of proceedings. The plaintiff�s claim alleged malicious prosecution and a breach of his s. 9 Charter rights by the various prosecutors.
HELD: The court granted the application to strike the plaintiff�s claim and gave summary judgment to Saskatchewan in dismissing the claim. With respect to striking the claim, the court found that the pleadings were deficient in that the claim had not named any individual or prosecutor or the attorney-general. The claim was also struck because it disclosed no reasonable cause of action under Queen�s Bench rule...