2 total
The Attorney General and Crown Attorneys do not enjoy absolute immunity from suits for malicious prosecution.
The appellant was charged with the murder of four infants and discharged at the preliminary inquiry.
She sued the Crown, the Attorney General, and police officers for malicious prosecution.
The respondents moved to strike the claim on the basis of absolute prosecutorial immunity.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the Crown itself enjoys absolute immunity under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, the Attorney General and Crown Attorneys do not enjoy absolute immunity at common law from suits for malicious prosecution.
The Court found that public policy does not justify absolute immunity where a prosecutor acts maliciously in fraud of their duties.
Combines Investigation Act does not apply to valid provincial regulatory schemes like Law Society advertising rules.
The Law Society of British Columbia disciplined a lawyer, Donald Jabour, for advertising his legal services.
Jabour and the federal Director of Investigation and Research challenged the Law Society's actions, arguing they violated the Combines Investigation Act and freedom of speech.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Combines Investigation Act does not apply to regulatory schemes validly established by provincial legislation.
The Court also affirmed that provincial superior courts have jurisdiction to declare federal statutes unconstitutional, despite the Federal Court Act.
Finally, the Court held that the Law Society's advertising restrictions, authorized by valid provincial law, did not unlawfully infringe freedom of speech.
