Thompson v. Ontario et al., (1998) 113 O.A.C. 82 (CA)

JudgeMcKinlay, Catzman and Osborne, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ontario)
Case DateOctober 28, 1997
JurisdictionOntario
Citations(1998), 113 O.A.C. 82 (CA)

Thompson v. Ont. (1998), 113 O.A.C. 82 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.A.C. TBEd. OC.020

Marshall Thompson (plaintiff/appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen in right of Ontario, The Attorney General of Ontario, Paul Stunt, Laurie Jago, John Ayre, Glyn Parsons, Carey Smith, Blake Smiley, Mauro Succi, James Dawson, David Denton, Paul Garner, Neil McWhinney, Daryl Dalton, Rod Wilson, Luis Arruda, James Chapman, John Stonehill, Gary Pokoradi, Graham Barnes, Joseph Barker, Wayne Parkinson, Ron Sullivan, Murray Eaton, David Atkinson, Stephen Tanner and W.I. James Harding (defendants/respondents)

(C18831)

Indexed As: Thompson v. Ontario et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

McKinlay, Catzman and Osborne, JJ.A.

October 1, 1998.

Summary:

A plaintiff was acquitted of second degree murder after three trials. He sued the provincial government, the Attorney General of Ontario, three Crown attorneys and 23 police officers (the defendants) for damages for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, negligent investigation and prosecution and for relief under s. 24(1) of the Charter. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the action and alternatively, to strike out the claim on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action or was frivolous and vexatious.

The Ontario Court (General Division) allowed the motion and ordered the plaintiff to pay all defend­ants' solicitor and client costs. The plaintiff appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1808

The prosecutor - Duty of disclosure - [See Criminal Law - Topic 128 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 128

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to make full answer and defence - A CNR employee found Jewett's body on railway tracks at 4:20 am - Thompson was acquitted of his murder - He sued the Crown, Crown attorneys and police officers for damages under s. 24(1) of the Charter - His claim was founded on Crown nondisclosure which compromised his right to make full answer and defence - The Crown had disclosed the CNR employee's will-say statement - Thompson asserted that police failed to disclose infor­mation about other CNR employees who had worked on trains passing through the area before 4:20 am - Thompson had not re­quested the informa­tion - A motions judge granted summary judgment dismiss­ing the action - On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that there was no violation of the Crown's duty to disclose - See para­graphs 44 to 53.

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - [See Criminal Law - Topic 128 ].

Crown - Topic 2845

Crown immunity - Agents - Prosecutors - Thompson was acquitted of second degree murder after three trials - He sued, inter alia, the Ontario Attorney General and the Crown attorneys for dam­ages for, inter alia, negligent investigation and prosecu­tion and false imprisonment - A motions judge struck out the claims as disclosing no reasonable cause of action - The On­tario Court of Appeal agreed - The general immunity of the Attorney Gen­eral and his agents barred claims based on negli­gence in the per­for­mance of their duties - See para­graph 56.

Crown - Topic 2845

Crown immunity - Agents - Prosecutors -[See first Crown - Topic 4941 ].

Crown - Topic 4941

Actions against Attorney General - Malicious prosecution - General - Thompson was acquitted of second degree murder after three trials - He sued, inter alia, the Ontario Attorney General and three Crown attorneys (defend­ants) for, inter alia, damages for malicious prosecu­tion - The defendants moved to, inter alia, strik­e out the claim on the basis that it dis­closed no reasona­ble cause of action or was frivol­ous and vex­atious (rule 21) - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that claim could not be struck out under rule 21 where gen­eral imm­unity did not extend to actions for malicious prosecution and the essential elements of malicious pros­ecution had been pleaded - However, the claim could be dismissed under rule 20 (sum­mary judgment) as disclosing no genuine issue for trial - See para­graphs 54, 55.

Crown - Topic 4941

Actions against Attorney General - Malicious prosecution - General - Thompson was acquitted of second degree murder after three trials - He sued, inter alia, the Ontario Attorney General and three Crown attorneys (defend­ants) for, inter alia, damages for malicious prosecu­tion - The defendants moved for, inter alia, summary judg­ment dismissing the action under rule 20 - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the motions judge cor­rectly granted summary judgment - The claim did not disclose any genuine issue for trial, where the Crown attorneys had reasonable and probable cause to prosecute Thompson and there was no malice - See paragraphs 54, 55.

Police - Topic 5222

Actions against police - For malicious prosecution - What constitutes - A police murder investigation disclosed that Thompson was asked to beat up the deceased, he had the opportunity to kill the deceased, a shoe imprint was consistent with Thompson's running shoe, he had visible bruises on his hands following the homicide and that he had made confessions - Thompson was charged with second degree murder and committed for trial - He was acquitted - He sued, inter alia, the investigating police officers for malicious prosecution - The action was dismissed on a motion for summary judg­ment - Thompson appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, where the officers acted with reasonable and probable cause and without malice - See paragraphs 31 to 40.

Police - Topic 5224

Actions against police - For malicious prosecution - Requirement of malice - [See Police - Topic 5222 ].

Practice - Topic 7457

Costs - Solicitor and client costs - Entitlement to - Where claim irrelevant, scandalous or without merit - Thompson was acquitted of second degree murder after three trials - He sued the provincial government, the Ontario Attorney General, three Crown attorneys and 23 police offi­cers (the defendants) for dam­ages for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, negligent investigation and prosecution and for relief under s. 24(1) of the Charter - The defendants moved for summary judg­ment dismissing the action and alternative­ly, to strike out the claim on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action or was frivolous and vexatious - A motions judge granted the motion and ordered Thompson to pay solicitor and client costs - Thompson appealed from, inter alia, the order of costs - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that solicitor and client costs were warranted because there was no evidence sup­porting the allegations of fraudulent mis­conduct and the claim was meritless - See para­graphs 59 to 64.

Practice - Topic 7470

Costs - Solicitor and client costs - Entitlement to - Unproved allegation of fraud - [See Practice - Topic 7457 ].

Torts - Topic 6154

Abuse of legal procedure - Malicious prosecution - Malice - General - [See second Crown - Topic 4941 and Police - Topic 5222 ].

Torts - Topic 6161

Abuse of legal procedure - Malicious prosecution - Reasonable and probable cause - [See second Crown - Topic 4941 and Police - Topic 5222 ].

Cases Noticed:

Ungerman (Irving) Ltd. et al. v. Galanis and Haut (1991), 50 O.A.C. 176; 4 O.R.(3d) 545 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

1061590 Ontario Ltd. v. Ontario Jockey Club et al. (1995), 77 O.A.C. 196; 21 O.R.(3d) 547 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

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, refd to. [para. 31].

Temilini v. Ontario Provincial Police (Commissioner) et al. (1990), 38 O.A.C. 270; 73 O.R.(2d) 664 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Curry v. Dargie (1984), 62 N.S.R.(2d) 416; 136 A.P.R. 416; 6 Admin. L.R. 169 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 8 C.R.(4th) 277, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Durette et al., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 469; 163 N.R. 321; 70 O.A.C. 1; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Farinacci - see R. v. Durette et al.

R. v. Richards (M.B.) et al. (1996), 70 B.C.A.C. 161; 115 W.A.C. 161 (C.A.), agreed with [para. 46].

R. v. Wilson (H.B.) (1994), 68 O.A.C. 131; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 115 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Dixon (S.) (1998), 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Egger (J.H.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451; 153 N.R. 272; 141 A.R. 81; 46 W.A.C. 81; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 103 D.L.R.(4th) 678; 21 C.R.(4th) 186; 15 C.R.R.(2d) 193; 45 M.V.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Bramwell (H.L.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1126; 204 N.R. 373; 83 B.C.A.C. 81; 136 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 52].

Munro v. Canada (1993), 16 O.R.(3d) 564 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 56].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (8th Ed. 1992), pp. 30, 31 [para. 41].

Counsel:

R. Silverstein, for the appellant;

T.C. Marshall, Q.C., for the respondents, Her Majesty The Queen in right of On­tario, the Attorney General of Ontario, Paul Stunt, Laurie Jago and John Ayre;

T. Archibald and L.C. Mullin, for all the other respondents.

This appeal was heard on October 28, 1997, before McKinlay, Catzman and Osborne, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Osborne, J.A., delivered the follow­ing judgment for the court on October 1, 1998.

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • Proulx v. Québec (Procureur général), (2001) 276 N.R. 201 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • October 18, 2001
    ...[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. Reynen v. Canada et al. (1995), 184 N.R. 350 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 214]. Milgaard v. Kujawa et al. (1994), 12......
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (April 15 – 18, 2019)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • May 6, 2019
    ...Arora v. Whirlpool Canada LP, 2013 ONCA 657, leave to appeal refused, [2013] S.C.C.A. No. 498, Thompson v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1998), 113 OAC 82 (CA), Gilbert v. Gilkinson (2005), 205 OAC 188 (CA), leave to appeal refused, [2006] SCCA No 67 Criminal Decisions R v. 2095540 Inc. (Appe......
  • Appendices
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Understanding Charter Damages. The Judicial Evolution of a Charter Remedy
    • June 23, 2016
    ...Police Force (1998), 75 OTC 241, [1998] OJ No 3840 (Gen Div). Trial court rejected Charter damages claim. 33) Thompson v Ontario (1998), 113 OAC 82, 56 CRR (2d) 112, [1998] OJ No 3917 (CA). Court of Appeal rejected Charter damages claim. 34) Jane Doe v Toronto (Metropolitan) Commissioners o......
  • Hyra v. Manitoba et al., 2015 MBCA 55
    • Canada
    • Manitoba Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • November 28, 2014
    ...184 N.R. 350 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 22]. German v. Major (1985), 62 A.R. 2 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22]. Thompson v. Ontario et al. (1998), 113 O.A.C. 82 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22]. Miguna v. Ontario (Attorney General) et al. (2005), 205 O.A.C. 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22]. Gilbert v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
24 cases
  • Proulx v. Québec (Procureur général), (2001) 276 N.R. 201 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • October 18, 2001
    ...[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. Reynen v. Canada et al. (1995), 184 N.R. 350 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 214]. Milgaard v. Kujawa et al. (1994), 12......
  • Hyra v. Manitoba et al., 2015 MBCA 55
    • Canada
    • Manitoba Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • November 28, 2014
    ...184 N.R. 350 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 22]. German v. Major (1985), 62 A.R. 2 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22]. Thompson v. Ontario et al. (1998), 113 O.A.C. 82 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22]. Miguna v. Ontario (Attorney General) et al. (2005), 205 O.A.C. 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22]. Gilbert v.......
  • Kvello et al. v. Miazga et al., 2007 SKCA 57
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
    • May 9, 2006
    ...al. (1993), 146 A.R. 270 (Q.B.), affd. (1995), 174 A.R. 174; 102 W.A.C. 174 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 190]. Thompson v. Ontario et al. (1998), 113 O.A.C. 82 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 201]. R. v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner; Ex parte Blackburn, [1968] 1 All E.R. 763 (C.A.), refd to. [para. ......
  • Driskell v. Dangerfield et al.,
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
    • June 13, 2007
    ...269; 365 A.P.R. 269, refd to. [para. 62]. German v. Major (1985), 62 A.R. 2 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65]. Thompson v. Ontario et al. (1998), 113 O.A.C. 82 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Miguna v. Ontario (Attorney General) et al. (2005), 205 O.A.C. 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65]. Kleysen et al. v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (April 15 – 18, 2019)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • May 6, 2019
    ...Arora v. Whirlpool Canada LP, 2013 ONCA 657, leave to appeal refused, [2013] S.C.C.A. No. 498, Thompson v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1998), 113 OAC 82 (CA), Gilbert v. Gilkinson (2005), 205 OAC 188 (CA), leave to appeal refused, [2006] SCCA No 67 Criminal Decisions R v. 2095540 Inc. (Appe......
1 books & journal articles
  • Appendices
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Understanding Charter Damages. The Judicial Evolution of a Charter Remedy
    • June 23, 2016
    ...Police Force (1998), 75 OTC 241, [1998] OJ No 3840 (Gen Div). Trial court rejected Charter damages claim. 33) Thompson v Ontario (1998), 113 OAC 82, 56 CRR (2d) 112, [1998] OJ No 3917 (CA). Court of Appeal rejected Charter damages claim. 34) Jane Doe v Toronto (Metropolitan) Commissioners o......

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