Deliberate Breach of the Charter.... CLICK HERE.

 Under Canadian administrative, public, and criminal law, there is a strict separation between constitutional/civil liability (breaches of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) and criminal liability (such as criminal fraud or breach of trust).

While public officials and government lawyers owe strict duties to the Crown and the public, deliberately exposing the government to constitutional liability does not automatically translate into criminal fraud.

1. Misconduct vs. Criminal Fraud

• The Legal Test for Fraud: Under Section 380 of the Criminal Code of Canada, criminal fraud requires proof of a dishonest act (deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means) that results in actual deprivation or financial risk to another party.
• Policy & Legal Disagreement: A public official or government lawyer making aggressive, reckless, or questionable policy choices that lead to Charter violations is typically viewed as exercising legal judgment, making a policy error, or acting in bad faith (mala fides). Bad legal judgment—even if intentional or reckless regarding legal risks—is generally dealt with through administrative remedies, political accountability, or civil litigation, rather than criminal fraud charges.

2. Breach of Trust by a Public Officer

• Rather than fraud, the criminal offense most relevant to public officials misusing their position is Breach of Trust by a Public Officer (Section 122 of the Criminal Code).
• To establish this offense, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:
  1. The accused is an official.
  2. The act was committed in connection with the duties of their office.
  3. The act constituted a breach of the standard of responsibility demanded by the office.
  4. The conduct was an unreasonable and marked departure from the standard expected of a person in that position. You didn't pay the benefits to every citizen in the Federal and Provincial mandate.  See s.15 of the Charter.  
  5. The official acted with the intention to use their office for a purpose other than the public good (e.g., personal gain, malice, or dishonest intent).   You didn't pay the benefits to every citizen in the Federal and Provincial mandate.  See s.15 of the Charter.  

3. Constitutional Remedies for Charter Breaches

• Section 24(1) Damages: When government actions deliberately or egregiously breach Charter rights, the standard legal response is a civil claim for Charter damages against the Crown under Section 24(1) of the Charter.
• Misfeasance in Public Office: If a public official intentionally acts unlawfully with the knowledge that it will cause harm to a specific individual, the affected party can sue for the tort of misfeasance in public office. This is a civil tort resulting in financial compensation rather than a criminal prosecution resulting in jail time.

4. Professional Accountability

• If a government lawyer knowingly advises or carries out a course of action intended to subvert the rule of law or deliberately expose the Crown to liability, they may face severe discipline from their provincial Law Society for breaching their professional code of conduct (e.g., duties of competence, integrity, and advising the client on the limits of the law).

While deliberate exposure to Charter liability represents bad faith and actionable public misfeasance, elevating it to a criminal charge requires concrete proof of corrupt intent, personal gain, or dishonest deceit. Such deliberate exposure, is an unconstitutional law or policy.