K. O’Dwyer

The appellant, a former municipal building official, was wrongfully dismissed and subsequently charged criminally after the municipality reported alleged missing permit fees to the police.

After being acquitted, he sued for wrongful dismissal and malicious prosecution.

The trial judge awarded damages for wrongful dismissal but dismissed the malicious prosecution claim, finding no initiation or malice by the municipality.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred by applying the high threshold for malice applicable to Crown prosecutors to a private defendant, and by making inconsistent findings regarding the municipality's conduct.

A new trial was ordered for the malicious prosecution claim and the quantum of punitive damages.

The appellants appealed a decision rejecting their request for a declaration that an access road was a public highway and that the Township was responsible for its maintenance and repair.

The appellants argued that the road's dedication by Ontario and assumption by the Township were apparent from surrounding circumstances, including negotiations and expenditures.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings that there was no actual dedication by Ontario and no clear and unequivocal assumption by the Township, as the Township had sought work permits and was compensated by Ontario for maintenance.

The appeal was dismissed.