Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Civil procedure — Evidence — Allegation of prosecutorial misconduct — Admissibility in evidence of settlement discussions between prosecutor and accused’s counsel — Under Canadian law, whether civil suit can be brought against Crown prosecutor who did not authorize or initiate proceedings or continue prosecution and whose only decision was to terminate proceedings (after, however, trying to negotiate termination of proceedings) — Under Canadian law, what is extent of privilege of confidentiality or non-disclosure favouring settlement of penal or criminal litigation — Whether that privilege protects prosecution as well as defence — Under Canadian law, what is extent of Crown’s discretion in conduct of criminal prosecution (and of relative immunity attaching thereto) — Whether reasons for Crown’s discretionary decision to terminate penal or criminal process are privileged under Canadian law — Whether there are exceptional circumstances in which Court will require invasion of privilege — Under Canadian law, whether Crown prosecutor is at fault and loses relative immunity solely because prosecutor tried to negotiate release-dismissal agreement.

In 2007, the respondent Mr. Singh was facing two criminal charges stemming from his participation in a demonstration. On the day of the trial, the applicant Mr. Rouillard, who was the Crown prosecutor for the applicant City of Montréal (“City”), tried to settle the case on certain conditions. According to Mr. Singh, Mr. Rouillard offered to settle the case in exchange for a promise by Mr. Singh not to bring a civil suit against the police officer, the prosecutors and the City. The criminal charges were ultimately withdrawn, so no settlement was reached concerning them. In 2008, Mr. Singh brought a civil suit against Mr. Rouillard and the City in which he alleged that Mr. Rouillard had acted in bad faith, with malice and in a manner inconsistent with the traditional prosecutorial function and that the prosecution had had a purpose other than carrying the law into effect. As evidence, Mr. Singh sought to call as a witness the lawyer who had represented him in the criminal prosecution and taken part in the settlement discussions with Mr. Rouillard. Relying on the privileged nature of the communications, the City and Mr. Rouillard objected to that evidence. The Superior Court allowed the objection. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.