John Carter

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision finding that Ontario had jurisdiction over it in the action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's reasons or conclusion, noting that the appellant accepted all findings of fact and the motion judge considered all relevant factors in the governing test.

The plaintiff brought a civil action against the Crown and police for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, conspiracy to injure, and intentional infliction of harm after his sexual assault conviction was overturned based on new DNA evidence.

The Crown successfully moved to strike the claims for abuse of process, conspiracy, and intentional infliction of harm on the basis that malicious prosecution is the only tort available against a prosecutor.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the jurisprudence is not fully settled on whether the four elements of malicious prosecution must always be proven in every civil action against a prosecutor, and therefore it was inappropriate to strike the claims at this early stage.