The plaintiff commenced a civil action alleging malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, misfeasance in public office, conspiracy, and related torts arising from withdrawn murder charges.
The Crown defendants moved under Rule 21.01 to strike the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action or, alternatively, as an abuse of process.
The court held that witness immunity protected the police officers for statements connected to prior proceedings and that the officers neither initiated the prosecution nor owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.
The pleadings contained bald allegations of malice and collusion without the material facts required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court also found the claim barred by a prior consent dismissal involving the Crown and concluded that allowing the action to proceed would constitute an abuse of process.
