Case information

Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Weighing evidence — Whether chambers judge improperly weighed evidence on motion for summary judgment — Whether Court of Appeal erred in defining “weighing evidence” — Torts — Intentional torts — Malicious prosecution —Whether chambers judge erred in holding reasonable and probable grounds for prosecution existed — Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Enforcement — Damages — Whether chambers judge erred in dismissing claim for Charter damages without a trial — Courts — Judges — Judicial impartiality — Whether chambers judge was biased against applicant

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.

Following a workplace conflict, the applicant authored a false news article in which she described herself shooting and killing two individuals at her former workplace. Police investigated and charged the applicant with uttering threats. In the course of their investigation, police obtained a statement from a witness who stated that she is fearful of the applicant. The police failed to provide this statement to Crown counsel and it was not disclosed to the applicant during the criminal proceeding. The applicant was acquitted of uttering threats. She commenced a claim for malicious prosecution against the Crown, and also sought Charter damages for non-disclosure of the witness statement.

With respect to the claim for malicious prosecution, the chambers judge held that it must fail because the evidence disclosed a reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution. With respect to Charter damages, that claim must also fail because the evidence in question was inculpatory and would not have assisted the applicant in mounting a defence, and furthermore because the non-disclosure was not intentional. The action was dismissed. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, finding no error in the chambers judge’s reasoning, and no basis for allegations of bias.