Case information

Torts — Malicious prosecution — Charter-offending material in a civil action — Malice requirement — Reasonable and probable cause to initiate prosecution — What is the test for the admission or exclusion of Charter-offending material in a civil action? — To what extent should the Crown’s decision to withdraw criminal charges affect the assessment of reasonable and probable grounds under the third branch of the test for malicious prosecution set out by this Court in Kvello v. Miazga?

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.

Police uncovered evidence incriminating the applicant in bribery and corruption offences and obtained an authorization to intercept Mr. McCormack’s communications. As a result of his incriminating utterances, he was charged with 22 criminal offences. The charges were never tried on their merits; some were stayed for delay and others were withdrawn by the Crown. Mr. McCormack filed a civil suit against the respondents, alleging wrongful prosecution, negligent investigation, and other civil torts. He maintains his innocence on the merits, arguing that the police had no reasonable and probable grounds to bring charges against him.

The Superior Court of Justice ruled that the evidence of recordings of wiretap intercepts was admissible at trial. The wiretap authorization had not been set aside and benefits from a presumption of validity. Furthermore, there were reasonable and probable grounds for Mr. McCormack’s arrest and the charges against him. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and held that the trial judge did not err in his analysis of the case.