Proulx v. Québec (Procureur général), (2001) 276 N.R. 201 (SCC)

JudgeMcLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateOctober 18, 2001
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2001), 276 N.R. 201 (SCC);2001 SCC 66;JE 2001-1975;46 CR (5th) 1;7 CCLT (3d) 157;[2001] SCJ No 65 (QL);EYB 2001-26159;[2001] 3 SCR 9;276 NR 201;206 DLR (4th) 1;108 ACWS (3d) 927;159 CCC (3d) 225

Proulx v. Que. (P.g.) (2001), 276 N.R. 201 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.R. TBEd. OC.031

Benoît Proulx (appelant) c. Le Procureur général du Québec (intimé)

(27235; 2001 CSC 66; 2001 SCC 66)

Indexed As: Proulx v. Québec (Procureur général)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.

October 18, 2001.

Summary:

Proulx sued the Attorney General of Que­bec for damages for malicious prosecution.

The Quebec Superior Court, in decisions reported respectively at [1997] R.J.Q. 2509; [1997] R.R.A. 1118 and at [1997] R.J.Q. 2516, allowed the action. The Attorney General appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, LeBel, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal. Proulx appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heu­reux-Dubé, Gonthier and Bastarache, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal, holding that this was one of the exceptional cases in which Crown immunity for prosecutorial misconduct should be lifted.

Crown - Topic 1802

Liability of the Crown in Quebec - Gen­eral principles - Fault - Action against Attorney General - Proulx sued the Attor­ney Gen­eral of Quebec for damages for malicious prosecution after he had been acquitted of a murder charge - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the action - In discussing the requirement of malice or improper pur­pose, the court held that a suit for ma­licious prosecution had to be based on more than mere recklessness or gross negligence - Rather, it required evidence that revealed a wilful and inten­tional effort on the Crown's part to abuse or distort its proper role within the crimi­nal justice system - In the civil law of Quebec, this was captured by the notion of "intentional fault" - The key to a malicious prose­cution was malice, but the concept of malice in this context included prosecu­tor­ial conduct that was fuelled by an "im­proper purpose" or, ... a purpose "incon­sistent with the status of 'minister of jus­tice'" - See para­graph 35.

Crown - Topic 2892

Crown immunity - Exceptions - Malicious prosecution - In 1991, a radio station broadcast "sensational" allegations linking Proulx to a 1982 murder for which the prosecution file had been closed because of insufficient grounds - Proulx sued several defendants for defamation, includ­ing Tardif, a then retired police officer who had worked on the closed prosecution file -An eyewitness then came forward - An iden­tification session took place at which Tardif, the Crown prosecutor and the eye­witness were present - The eyewit­ness was only able to identify Proulx's eyes and beard - The municipal police rehired Tardif to work on the criminal investi­gation file - Proulx was charged with murder - A 1983 "surreptitiously" recorded conversation between Proulx and the vic­tim's father was also given in evi­dence - Proulx was acquitted - He sued the Attor­ney General of Quebec for malicious pros­ecution - The Supreme Court of Canada al­lowed the action, hold­ing that this was one of the exceptional cases in which Crown immunity for prose­cutorial miscon­duct should be lifted - Firstly, the Crown prose­cutor did not have reasonable and probable cause to prosecute in that, inter alia: (1) the eyewitness ident­ification was "flagrant­ly inadequate"; and (2) the prosecutor should have known that the recorded con­versation was not properly admissible and even if admissible, it proved nothing - Secondly, malice or improper purpose was shown in that either the prosecutor lent his office to a defence strategy in the defama­tion actions or he decided to secure a conviction at all costs - See paragraphs 1 to 46.

Crown - Topic 4941

Actions against Attorney General -Malicious prosecution - General - [See Crown - Topic 2892 ].

Crown - Topic 4942

Actions against Attorney General - Malicious prosecution - Malice or improper purpose - What constitutes - [See Crown - Topic 1802 ].

Cases Noticed:

Nelles v. Ontario et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170; 98 N.R. 321; 35 O.A.C. 161; 60 D.L.R.(4th) 609, folld. [paras. 4, 47].

R. v. Proulx, [1992] R.J.Q. 2047; 49 Q.A.C. 161; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 316 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 6, 52].

R. v. Dwyer (1924), 18 Cr. App. Rep. 145, consd. [paras. 17, 191].

R. v. Swanston (1982), 65 C.C.C.(2d) 453 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 23, 193].

R. v. Mezzo, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 802; 68 N.R. 1; 43 Man.R.(2d) 161; [1986] 4 W.W.R. 577; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 97, consd. [paras. 24, 195].

R. v. Marcoux, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 763; 4 N.R. 64, refd to. [paras. 24, 196].

R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; 103 N.R. 86; 37 O.A.C. 322; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 74 C.R.(3d) 281; 45 C.R.R. 278, refd to. [paras. 28, 157].

R. v. Fasciano - see R. v. Sanelli, D­uarte and Fasciano.

R. v. Duarte - see R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano.

Boucher v. R., [1955] S.C.R. 16, refd to. [paras. 31, 121].

R. v. Bain, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 91; 133 N.R. 1; 51 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Charest (A.) (1990), 28 Q.A.C. 258; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 312 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. F.S. (2000), 130 O.A.C. 41; 47 O.R.(3d) 349 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 33].

Laurentide Motels Ltd. et al. v. Beauport (Ville) et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 705; 94 N.R. 1; 23 Q.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 63].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. and Knapp v. Québec Police Commission, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 618; 28 N.R. 541; 101 D.L.R.(3d) 24, consd. [para. 73].

Senez v. Montreal Real Estate Board, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 555; 35 N.R. 545, consd. [para. 73].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Labrecque et al., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1057; 38 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 73].

2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Régis des permis d'alcool du Québec et autres, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 919; 205 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 73].

Alliance des professeurs catholiques de Montréal v. Labour Relations Board (Que.), [1953] 2 S.C.R. 140, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Cliche, [1935] S.C.R. 561, refd to. [para. 86].

McArthur v. R., [1943] Ex. C.R. 77, refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Anthony, [1946] S.C.R. 569, refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1958] O.R. 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Eldorado Nuclear Ltd.; R. v. Uranium Canada Ltd., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 551; 50 N.R. 120; 1 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 86].

Sparling v. Quebec, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1015; 89 N.R. 120; 20 Q.A.C. 174, refd to. [para. 86].

CNCP Telecommunications v. Alberta Government Telephones and CRTC, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 225; 98 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Sellars, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 527; 32 N.R. 70; 110 D.L.R.(3d) 629; 52 C.C.C.(2d) 345; 20 C.R.(3d) 381, consd. [para. 94].

Martel Building Ltd. v. Canada, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 860; 262 N.R. 285, refd to. [para. 109].

Ingles v. Tutkaluk Construction Ltd. et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 298; 251 N.R. 63; 13 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 109].

Lewis et al. v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1145; 220 N.R. 81; 98 B.C.A.C. 168; 161 W.A.C. 168, refd to. [para. 109].

Brown v. British Columbia (Minister of Transportation and Highways), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 420; 164 N.R. 161; 42 B.C.A.C. 1; 67 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 109].

Swinamer v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) et al., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 445; 163 N.R. 291; 129 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 362 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 109].

Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228; 103 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 109].

Manolakos v. Vernon (City) et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1259; 102 N.R. 249; 63 D.L.R.(4th) 449, refd to. [para. 109].

Rothfield et al. v. Manolakos et al. - see Manolakos v. Vernon (City) et al.

Ryan v. Victoria (City) et al., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 201; 234 N.R. 201; 117 B.C.A.C. 103; 191 W.A.C. 103, refd to. [para. 110].

Tock and Tock v. St. John's Metropolitan Area Board, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1181; 104 N.R. 241; 82 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 257 A.P.R. 181; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 620, refd to. [para. 110].

Quebec (Procureur général) v. Deniso LeBel Inc., [1996] R.J.Q. 1821 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 111].

Imbler v. Pachtman (1976), 424 U.S. 409 (S.C.), consd. [para. 125].

Yaselli v. Goff (1926), 12 F.2d 396 (2nd Cir.), consd. [para. 125].

Reference Re Truscott, [1967] S.C.R. 309, refd to. [para. 141].

R. v. Kaysaywaysemat (1992), 10 C.R.(4th) 317 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 141].

R. v. Bowles and Danylak (1985), 62 A.R. 167; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 540 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 141].

R. v. Genest (M.), [1990] R.J.Q. 2387; 32 Q.A.C. 182 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 141].

R. v. White (R.G.) and Côté (Y.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 72; 227 N.R. 326; 112 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 141].

R. v. Ménard (S.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 109; 228 N.R. 100; 111 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 141].

Hicks v. Faulkner (1878), 8 Q.B.D. 167, refd to. [para. 147].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 151].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 157].

R. v. Ferianz (1962), 37 C.R. 37 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 171].

R. v. Ruddick (1980), 57 C.C.C.(2d) 421 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 171].

R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny (1985), 8 O.A.C. 31; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), consd. [para. 174].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [para. 175].

R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 93; 91 N.R. 201; 31 O.A.C. 177, refd to. [para. 175].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 175].

R. v. Thompson et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1111; 114 N.R. 1; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 225; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 481; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 321; 80 C.R.(3d) 129; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 596; 50 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 175].

R. v. Wong et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36; 120 N.R. 34; 45 O.A.C. 250; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 460, refd to. [para. 175].

R. v. Sobotiak (R.A.) (1994), 155 A.R. 16; 73 W.A.C. 16 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 175].

R. v. Comeau (A.), [1992] R.J.Q. 339; 44 Q.A.C. 93 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 175].

Amadzadegan-Shamirzadi v. Polak, [1991] R.J.Q. 1839 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 175].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 5 C.R.(5th) 1; 144 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 176].

R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341; 216 N.R. 161; 103 O.A.C. 81; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 405, consd. [para. 176].

R. v. Burlingham (T.W.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206; 181 N.R. 1; 58 B.C.A.C. 161; 96 W.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 179].

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 145; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 1; 47 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 182].

R. v. Langille (1990), 40 O.A.C. 355; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 544 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 193].

R. v. Gagnon (Y.R.J.) et al. (2000), 136 O.A.C. 116 (C.A.), consd. [para. 198].

R. v. T.T. and S.L. (1997), 103 O.A.C. 15; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 35 O.R.(3d) 641 (C.A.), consd. [para. 199].

United States of America v. Shephard, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067; 9 N.R. 215; 30 C.C.C.(2d) 424; 70 D.L.R.(3d) 136; 34 C.R.N.S. 207, consd. [para. 206].

R. v. Charemski, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 679; 224 N.R. 120; 108 O.A.C. 126, consd. [para. 206].

R. v. Arcuri (G.) (2001), 274 N.R. 274; 150 O.A.C. 126 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 209].

Boudreault v. Barrett et al. (1998), 219 A.R. 67; 179 W.A.C. 67 (C.A.), consd. [para. 214].

Thompson v. Ontario et al. (1998), 113 O.A.C. 82 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 214].

Reynen v. Canada et al. (1995), 184 N.R. 350 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 214].

Milgaard v. Kujawa et al. (1994), 123 Sask.R. 164; 74 W.A.C. 164; 118 D.L.R.(4th) 653; [1994] 9 W.W.R. 305 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 214].

Prete v. Ontario et al. (1993), 68 O.A.C. 1; 16 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 214].

Deline v. Kidd et al., [2001] B.C.T.C. 491 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 214].

Monette v. Owens et al. (2000), 144 Man.R.(2d) 55 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 214].

Charemski v. Ontario et al., [2000] O.T.C. Uned. D74 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 214].

Fiset et al. v. Toronto Police Services Board et al., [1999] O.T.C. Uned. B99 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 214].

Perron v. Quebec (Procureur général), [2000] J.Q. no. 4700, refd to. [para. 242].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Archambault, Jean-Denis, Les sources juridiques de la responsabilité extra-contractuelle de la Couronne du Québec: variations de droit public (1992), 52 R. du B. 515, pp. 517 [para. 87]; 519 to 520 [paras. 89, 116]; 530 [para. 90]; 537 [para. 77].

Archambault, Jean-Denis, Les sources juridiques des immunités civiles et de la responsabilité extracontractuelle du procureur général à raison d'accusations pénales erronées: le mixte et le mêlé (Québec c. Proulx) (1999), 59 R. du B. 59, pp. 74 [para. 115]; 82 to 83 [para. 109]; 97 [para. 113].

Butt, David, Malicious Prosecution: Nelles v. Ontario: Rejoinder -- John Sopinka (1994), 74 Can. Bar Rev. 366; (1996), 75 Can. Bar Rev. 335, generally [para. 81].

Canada, Commission de réforme du droit, L'identification par témoin oculaire avant le procès, par Neil Brooks, 1983, pp. 176 to 177 [para. 197].

Côté, Pierre-André, La détermination du domaine du droit civil en matière de responsabilité civile de l'Àdministration québécoise -- Commentaire de l'arrêt Laurentide Motels (1994), 28 R.J.T. 411, p. 425 [para. 109].

Delisle, Ronald Joseph. Evidence: Prin­ciples and Problems (4th Ed. 1996), p. 23 [para. 140].

Fleming, John G, The Law of Torts (5th Ed. 1977), p. 598 [para. 123].

Garant, Patrice, Droit Administratif, 4e éd., 1996, vol. 1, p. 10 [para. 73]; vol. 2, pp. 565, 600 to 619 [para. 106].

Garant, Patrice, La responsabilité civile de la puissance publique: du clair obscur au nébuleux (1991), 32 C. de D. 745, gen­erally [para. 111].

Giroux, Pierre, et Stéphane Rochette, La mauvaise foi et la responsabilité de l'É­tat, ans Service de la formation perman­ente du Barreau du Québec, Développe­ments récents en droit administratif et constitutionnel, 1999, vol. 119, pp. 122 to 123 [para. 111].

Hogg, Peter W., and Monahan, Patrick J., Liability of the Crown (3rd Ed. 2000), generally [para. 86].

Immarigeon, Henriette, La responsabilité extra-contractuelle de la Couronne au Canada (1965), p. 51 [para. 88].

Klar, Lewis N., Recent Developments in Canadian Law: Tort Law (1991), 23 R.D. Ottawa. 177, p. 193 [para. 109].

Lordon, Paul, Crown Law (1991), gen­erally [para. 86].

Pigeon, Louis-Philippe, Rédaction et in­terprétation des lois (1965), pp. 40 [paras. 48, 74, French version]; 51 to 52 [para. 74, French version].

Pigeon, Louis-Philippe, Drafting and Inter­preting Legislation (1988), pp. 65 [paras. 48, 74, English version]; 66 [para. 74, English version].

Robinette, John, Circumstantial Evidence, [1955] Spec. Lect. L.S.U.C. 307, p. 307 [para. 140].

Royer, Jean-Claude, la preuve civile, 2e éd., 1995, p. 473 [para. 136].

Sopinka, John, Malicious Prosecution: Invasion of Charter Interests: Remedies: Nelles v. Ontario: R. v. Jednynack: R. v. Simpson (1995), 74 Can. Bar Rev. 366, generally [para. 81].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), pp. 38, 41 [para. 139]; 320 [para. 193].

Walton, F. P., The Legal System of Que­bec (1913), 33 Can. Law Times 280, p. 281 [para. 73].

Counsel:

Christian Trépanier and Lawrence Corri­veau, Q.C., for the appellant;

Claude Gagnon, Alain Loubier and Carole Soucy, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Corriveau, Corriveau, Québec, Quebec, for the appellant;

St-Laurent, Gagnon, Québec, Quebec, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on December 11, 2000, by McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastara­che and Binnie, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on Oct­ober 18, 2001, and the following reasons were filed:

Iacobucci and Binnie, JJ. (McLachlin, C.J.C., and Major, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 46;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. (Gonthier and Bas­tarache, JJ., concurring), dissenting - see para­graphs 47 to 250.

To continue reading

Request your trial
142 practice notes
  • R. v. Derose (A.S.) et al., 2002 ABPC 154
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • October 15, 2002
    ...; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1 , refd to. [para. 1]. R. v. Proulx - see Proulx v. Québec (Procureur général). Proulx v. Québec (Procureur général) (2001), 276 N.R. 201; 159 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. R. v. Rose (J.) (1998), 232 N.R. 83 ; 115 O.A.C. 201 ; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (S.C.C.),......
  • MacLellan v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2014) 349 N.S.R.(2d) 52 (SC)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • January 8, 2014
    ...Nelles v. Ontario et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170; 98 N.R. 321; 35 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 65]. Proulx v. Québec (Procureur général), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 9; 276 N.R. 201; 2001 SCC 66, refd to. [para. R. v. Tupper, 2007 CM 1028, refd to. [para. 68]. Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. ......
  • Section 83.28 of the Criminal, (2004) 199 B.C.A.C. 45 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • June 23, 2004
    ...R., [1955] S.C.R. 16, refd to. [para. 95]. Lemay v. R., [1952] 1 S.C.R. 232, refd to. [para. 97]. Proulx v. Québec (Procureur général), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 9; 276 N.R. 201; 2001 SCC 66, refd to. [para. Ruby v. Canada (Solicitor General) - see Ruby v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al. Ruby v.......
  • R. v. Gagnon (J.G.A.), (2015) 481 N.R. 244 (CMAC)
    • Canada
    • June 12, 2015
    ...success in such an action: Miazga v. Kvello Estate , 2009 SCC 51, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 339, at para. 43; Proulx v. Quebec (Attorney General) , 2001 SCC 66, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 9, at para. 4; Nelles v. Ontario , [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170. As a result, an action for malicious prosecution must be based on ma......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
123 cases
  • R. v. Derose (A.S.) et al., 2002 ABPC 154
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • October 15, 2002
    ...; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1 , refd to. [para. 1]. R. v. Proulx - see Proulx v. Québec (Procureur général). Proulx v. Québec (Procureur général) (2001), 276 N.R. 201; 159 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. R. v. Rose (J.) (1998), 232 N.R. 83 ; 115 O.A.C. 201 ; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (S.C.C.),......
  • Section 83.28 of the Criminal, (2004) 322 N.R. 205 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • June 23, 2004
    ...R., [1955] S.C.R. 16, refd to. [para. 95]. Lemay v. R., [1952] 1 S.C.R. 232, refd to. [para. 97]. Proulx v. Québec (Procureur général), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 9; 276 N.R. 201; 2001 SCC 66, refd to. [para. Ruby v. Canada (Solicitor General) - see Ruby v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al. Ruby v.......
  • MacLellan v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2014) 349 N.S.R.(2d) 52 (SC)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • January 8, 2014
    ...Nelles v. Ontario et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170; 98 N.R. 321; 35 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 65]. Proulx v. Québec (Procureur général), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 9; 276 N.R. 201; 2001 SCC 66, refd to. [para. R. v. Tupper, 2007 CM 1028, refd to. [para. 68]. Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. ......
  • Section 83.28 of the Criminal, (2004) 199 B.C.A.C. 45 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • June 23, 2004
    ...R., [1955] S.C.R. 16, refd to. [para. 95]. Lemay v. R., [1952] 1 S.C.R. 232, refd to. [para. 97]. Proulx v. Québec (Procureur général), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 9; 276 N.R. 201; 2001 SCC 66, refd to. [para. Ruby v. Canada (Solicitor General) - see Ruby v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al. Ruby v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (April 15 – 18, 2019)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • May 6, 2019
    ...Inc., [1990] 2 SCR 959, Salewski v. Lalonde, 2017 ONCA 515, Nelles v. Ontario, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170, Proulx v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2001 SCC 66, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 9, Miazga v. Kvello, 2009 SCC 51, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 339, Henry v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 24, Vancouver (......
  • Supreme Court Refines The Test For Damages For Non-Disclosure: Henry V. British Columbia (Attorney General)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • May 11, 2015
    ...the claim on the basis of the existing Supreme Court authority (Nelles v Ontario, [1989] 2 SCR 170; Proulx v Quebec (Attorney General), 2001 SCC 66; and Miazga v. Kvello Estate, 2009 SCC 51) that foreclosed prosecutorial liability for negligence and required evidence of The Decision of the ......
  • 'Uneasy Lies The Head That Wears A Crown': Crown Immunity In Canada
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • December 20, 2019
    ...to Crown immunity where, in a claim for malicious prosecution, the Crown acted with malice. In Proulx v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 9 (Lexum) and Kvello v. Miazga, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 339 (Lexum), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Crown Attorneys were immune from civil liability......
12 books & journal articles
  • The Prosecutor
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Ethics and Criminal Law. Second Edition
    • June 19, 2015
    ...in subsequent Supreme Court of Canada cases, including R v Cook (1997), 114 CCC (3d) 481 at para 21 (SCC) [ Cook ]; Proulx v Quebec (AG) , 2001 SCC 66 at para 41 [ Proulx ]; R v Regan , 2002 SCC 12 at para 65 [ Regan ]; R v Taillefer , 2003 SCC 70 at para 68 [ Taillefer ]; R v Trochym , 200......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Ethics and Criminal Law. Second Edition
    • June 19, 2015
    ...419, 421 Pritchard v Ontario (Human Rights Commission), 2004 SCC 31 ............158, 160, 169, 195, 247, 409 Proulx v Quebec (AG), 2001 SCC 66 ......................................................... 582, 603 Purcell v District Attorney for the Suffolk District, 676 NE2d 436 (Mass 1997) ........
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Forensic Investigations and Miscarriages of Justice. The Rhetoric Meets The Reality Part Three
    • June 15, 2010
    ...Her Majesty’s Advocate, [1981] Crim. L.R. 783 .............................................. 243 Proulx v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 9, 2001 SCC 66 ......................... 94 R. (Burns) v. County Court Judge of Tyrone, [1961] N.I. 167 ................... 175, 176, 178, 18......
  • Unchecked power: the constitutional regulation of arrest reconsidered.
    • Canada
    • McGill Law Journal Vol. 48 No. 2, June 2003
    • June 1, 2003
    ...and he had no ulterior motive of personal gain or advantage or spite or ill-will" (ibid. at 364). But see Proulx v. Quebec (A.G.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 9, 206 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 2001 SCC 66 [Proulx]. (110) See R. v. Williams, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128 at 1158, 159 D.L.R. (2d) 493; R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT