The respondents were charged with sexual assault based on allegations by three children.
The charges were stayed by the appellant Crown prosecutor, and the children later recanted.
The respondents sued the prosecutor for malicious prosecution.
The trial judge and Court of Appeal found the prosecutor liable, concluding his lack of subjective belief in the probable guilt of the respondents was sufficient to ground a finding of malice.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and dismissed the action, holding that malice requires proof of an improper purpose.
A prosecutor's lack of subjective belief in reasonable and probable cause does not equate to malice and does not dispense with the requirement to prove an improper purpose.
