Lawrence Corriveau

The appellant brought a civil claim for damages arising from an acquitted first degree murder prosecution, alleging malicious prosecution by the provincial Attorney General.

The majority held that the exceptional threshold for lifting prosecutorial immunity was met because the prosecution lacked reasonable and probable cause and was motivated by an improper purpose arising from the mixing of public prosecutorial functions with private interests tied to related defamation litigation.

The Court found the identification evidence flagrantly inadequate, the surreptitiously recorded conversation likely inadmissible and devoid of probative value, and the prosecutorial conduct inconsistent with the Crown’s role as minister of justice.

The appeal was allowed, the Court of Appeal judgment was set aside, and the trial judgments on liability and damages were restored.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal that had quashed the respondent's committal for extradition on a continuing criminal enterprise count.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the matter was governed by its recent decision in Re McVey.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was set aside and the warrant of committal was restored.

The appellant, an RCMP officer, was acquitted in the United States of bribery charges related to disclosing confidential information.

He was subsequently charged in Canada with breach of trust under the Criminal Code based on the same events.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Canadian prosecution was not barred by the principles of double jeopardy, autrefois acquit, issue estoppel, the Kienapple principle, or s. 11(h) of the Charter.

The Court found that the Canadian and American offences were different in nature, as they involved different elements and were based on distinct duties owed to different sovereigns.

The appellant appealed his manslaughter conviction to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing that the trial judge erred in his directions to the jury regarding self-defence.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Court of Appeal's decision to uphold the conviction.