From the Angel Ronan Lex Scripta(TM) Vault.
Dear Mr. Kristoph Aileetto;
In 2009, Canada's Supreme Court wrote, in Miazga:
Malicious prosecution is an intentional tort designed to provide redress
for losses flowing from an unjustified prosecution. The court stated the following as the three essential elements:
"Under the first element of the test for malicious prosecution, the
plaintiff must prove that the prosecution at issue was initiated by
the defendant. This element identifies the proper target of the suit,
as it is only those who were actively instrumental in setting the law
in motion that may be held accountable for any damage that
results...."
"The second element of the tort demands evidence that the prosecution
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.
The favourable termination requirement may be satisfied no matter the
route by which the proceedings conclude in the plaintiff’s favour,
whether it be an acquittal, a discharge at a preliminary hearing, a
withdrawal, or a stay. However, where the termination does not result
from an adjudication on the merits, for example, in the case of a
settlement or plea bargain, a live issue may arise whether the
termination of the proceedings was in favour of the plaintiff....
"The third element which must be proven by a plaintiff — absence of
reasonable and probable cause to commence or continue the prosecution
— further delineates the scope of potential plaintiffs. As a matter of
policy, if reasonable and probable cause existed at the time the
prosecutor commenced or continued the criminal proceeding in question,
the proceeding must be taken to have been properly instituted,
regardless of the fact that it ultimately terminated in favour of the
accused....
"Finally, the initiation of criminal proceedings in the absence of
reasonable and probable grounds does not itself suffice to ground a
plaintiff’s case for malicious prosecution, regardless of whether the
defendant is a private or public actor. Malicious prosecution, as the
label implies, is an intentional tort that requires proof that the
defendant’s conduct in setting the criminal process in motion was
fueled by malice. The malice requirement is the key to striking the
balance that the tort was designed to maintain: between society’s
interest in the effective administration of criminal justice and the
need to compensate individuals who have been wrongly prosecuted for a
primary purpose other than that of carrying the law into effect"
--
Powered by Angel Ronan Lex Scripta(TM) Services.
Angel Ronan is here to serve you with a smile.
Thank you for contacting Angel Ronan. We are here to serve you.
Comments
Post a Comment