Curlett v. Canadian Fire Insurance Co.

Curlett v. Canadian Fire Insurance Co.

The trial judge's charge may have confounded the issue of absence of reasonable and probable cause with the question of the plaintiff's guilt or innocence; because the relevant test is the facts honestly and reasonably believed by the prosecutor, not the accused's explanations, the Appellate Division correctly ordered a new trial; accordingly the appellant's appeal to restore the trial judgment was dismissed and the respondents' cross-appeal to dismiss the action was also dismissed.

Citation
[1943] SCR 82
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Harry Graves Curlett; Defendant/respondent: Canadian Fire Insurance Company and other respondents (insurance companies and individual employees)
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 February 1943
Procedural Posture
Malicious Prosecution (civil) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division
Outcome
Appeal by plaintiff dismissed; cross-appeal by defendants dismissed; new trial ordered on the malicious prosecution claim; costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Reasonable and Probable Cause, Malice, Jury Instructions, New Trial, Prosecutorial Decision Making, Conspiracy, Libel and Slander
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Civil Torts Procedural Law Malicious Prosecution Reasonable and Probable Cause Malice Jury Instructions New Trial +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harry Graves Curlett

Plaintiff/appellant

Canadian Fire Insurance Company and other respondents (insurance companies and individual employees)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Malicious Prosecution (civil) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants procured the prosecution or the Attorney General acted on his own motion
  2. 2 Whether defendants placed facts fairly before or misled the Attorney General's officers
  3. 3 Whether defendants had reasonable and probable cause to institute prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's charge may have confounded the issue of absence of reasonable and probable cause with the question of the plaintiff's guilt or innocence; because the relevant test is the facts honestly and reasonably believed by the prosecutor, not the accused's explanations, the Appellate Division correctly ordered a new trial; accordingly the appellant's appeal to restore the trial judgment was dismissed and the respondents' cross-appeal to dismiss the action was also dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal by plaintiff dismissed; cross-appeal by defendants dismissed; new trial ordered on the malicious prosecution claim; costs awarded.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Cross-appeal dismissed