The appellant police officers sued the respondents for malicious prosecution after assault charges against them were stayed.
The respondent Bapoo counterclaimed for assault and breach of his s. 7 Charter rights.
The trial judge dismissed the malicious prosecution claim and awarded Bapoo damages under s. 24(1) of the Charter for the unauthorized use of force, despite finding the officers did not act with mala fides.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the malicious prosecution claim but set aside the Charter damages, holding that liability for a constitutional tort requires proof of wilfulness or mala fides.
The court also adjusted the costs awards, finding the trial judge's characterization of the appellants' testimony as perjury was inappropriate.
