Proulx v. Québec (Procureur général), (2001) 276 N.R. 201 (SCC)
| Judge | McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Canada |
| Case Date | Thursday October 18, 2001 |
| Jurisdiction | Canada (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
-
R. v. Gagnon (J.G.A.), (2015) 481 N.R. 244 (CMAC)
...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......
-
Section 83.28 of the Criminal, (2004) 199 B.C.A.C. 45 (SCC)
...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)
...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. ......
-
Paradis Honey Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2015) 472 N.R. 75 (FCA)
...Marketing Board), [1976] 4 W.W.R. 406; 69 D.L.R.(3d) 114 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 87]. Proulx v. Québec (Procureur général), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 9; 276 N.R. 201; 2001 SCC 66, refd to. [para. Hill et al. v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board et al., [2007] 3 S.C.R. 129; 368 N.......
-
Section 83.28 of the Criminal, (2004) 199 B.C.A.C. 45 (SCC)
...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. Derose (A.S.) et al., 2002 ABPC 154
...; 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)
...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)
...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......
-
Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (April 15 18, 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)
...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
...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......
-
The Arrest and Evidentiary Demands
...527, at para. 20 (2) reasonable grounds to arrest or search has both a subjective and an objective component: Proulx v. Quebec (A.G.) , [2001] 3 S.C.R. 9, at para. 20; R. v. Storrey (1990), 53 C.C.C. (3d) 316 (S.C.C.) at p. 324 (3) the existence of reasonable and probable grounds to make a ......
-
Table of cases
...Service of Canada v. Northwest Territories (Commissioner), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 367, 72 D.L.R. (4th) 1 .... 185– 89 Proulx v. Quebec (A.G.), 2001 SCC 66, 206 D.L.R. (4th) 1 ............................... 387 Quebec (A.G.) v. Blaikie (No. 1), [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1016, 101 D.L.R. (3d) 394 ..... 364 Q......
-
Table of Cases
...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......
-
The Prosecutor
...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......