Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism.
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
Just$1.99
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); } //

Clouds pass by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa, on June 12, 2020.

Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press

Police cannot sue prosecutors over how they conduct their prosecutions, even when the prosecutors abuse their power and allow lies to stand about police conduct, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled 8-1 on Friday.

In the first case of its kind to reach the top court, the majority said prosecutors’ immunity from lawsuits extends beyond the police to include “almost all cases” of third parties, such as witnesses and complainants. That leaves only accused persons with the right to sue, if they can meet the high standard of proving malicious prosecution. The court deems them “uniquely vulnerable” to abuse of prosecutorial power.

“If you permit police to sue Crown prosecutors, it certainly suggests to the public that the police are trying to police the prosecution through the back door,” said Paul Cavalluzzo, who represented the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel and the Ontario Crown Attorneys’ Association, which intervened in the case.

Story continues below advertisement

And permitting lawsuits by third parties such as complainants in sexual-offence cases and witnesses would “open the floodgates,” he said in an interview, and leave prosecutors “more concerned about being sued than prosecuting the case.”

The decision came in a 2009 case in which three Toronto police officers sued the Ontario Attorney-General, saying three provincial prosecutors did not ask them to give evidence denying allegations from two men accused of robbery and forcible confinement that the officers had assaulted them during an arrest.

The two accused men had their charges thrown out, and the three officers, Jamie Clark, Donald Belanger and Steven Watts, members of the Hold Up Squad with over 70 years’ combined experience, were denounced for “brutality” by a trial judge and an appeal court. But they never had a chance to testify or present arguments in court. The officers said the accusations had caused them irreparable harm, and they sued for $750,000 each for negligence, misfeasance and other damages. The Ontario Court of Appeal had ruled 3-0 that they could sue but only for misfeasance – deliberate, unlawful conduct likely to cause harm. The Ontario Attorney-General appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of their claim, but only on whether they had the right to sue. The court said allowing police to sue prosecutors could cause deep harm to the justice system. Police and prosecutors are independent from one another, they said; police investigate crime, while prosecutors’ role is to protect the public interest. Miscarriages of justice such as the murder convictions of Donald Marshall Jr. in Nova Scotia in 1971 and Guy Paul Morin in Ontario in 1992 have occurred when prosecutors failed to maintain objectivity and were in too close contact with police, the court said.

“The police certainly have a legitimate expectation and interest in their reputations not being unfairly impaired,” Justice Rosalie Abella wrote for the majority. “But the solution cannot be to make prosecutors accountable to them in a way that obliterates the independence between the police and prosecutors and is inconsistent with the Crown’s core public duties to the administration of justice and to the accused.”

In a strong dissent that came with its own table of contents, Justice Suzanne Côté said that police, like anyone else, are entitled to equality before the law. She cited the 1959 Supreme Court ruling in Roncarelli v Duplessis, in which Quebec premier Maurice Duplessis himself was held personally liable for ordering the revocation of a restaurant’s liquor licence, part of a provincial campaign against Jehovah’s Witnesses.

And the three officers themselves, she wrote, were treated as if convicted, but without a trial: “Such serious findings may thus have a deleterious effect on their right to liberty and security, their right to dignity and a good reputation, and their mental health – just like criminal charges may have on an accused person.” Unlike the majority, which made no criticism of how the officers were treated, Justice Côté suggested the prosecutors had bungled the case.

Story continues below advertisement

Michael Lacy, a lawyer representing the officers, said they had sued because they had been falsely accused, and can move forward “now that the falsehoods have been exposed and the public record more accurately reflects reality.”

He said the court’s decision to grant prosecutors immunity against third parties “leaves those injured by bad faith and deliberate malicious acts’” with no way to seek redress for those wrongs.

Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies