Casey v. Automobiles Renault Canada Ltd.

Casey v. Automobiles Renault Canada Ltd.

Where an informant swears an information alleging an offence within the magistrate's jurisdiction and the magistrate receives and considers it (takes cognizance), that act constitutes doing all that the informant could do to set the criminal law in motion and is sufficient to found an action for malicious prosecution if the other elements (malice, want of reasonable and probable cause, termination in favour and damage) are present.

Citation
[1965] SCR 607
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Douglas A. Casey; Defendant/respondent: Automobiles Renault Canada Limited; Defendant (informant): George Coleman; Defendant (company Employee): Maurice Myrand
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 May 1965
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort (malicious Prosecution) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (in Banco)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment at trial restored (majority), Judson J. dissenting
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Laying of Information, Magistrate Jurisdiction, Withdrawal of Charge, Termination of Proceedings, Reasonable and Probable Cause
Source Language
English
Tort Law Criminal Law Procedural Law Malicious Prosecution Laying of Information Magistrate Jurisdiction Withdrawal of Charge Termination of Proceedings +1 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Douglas A. Casey

Plaintiff/appellant

Automobiles Renault Canada Limited

Defendant/respondent

George Coleman

Defendant (informant)

Maurice Myrand

Defendant (company Employee)

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort (malicious Prosecution) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (in Banco)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a prosecution was commenced by the laying and reception of an information before a magistrate who took cognizance but before any summons or warrant was issued
  2. 2 Whether the laying of such an information that discloses an offence within the magistrate's jurisdiction and which he receives suffices to ground an action for malicious prosecution
  3. 3 Whether the informant's withdrawal of the information and lack of subsequent process defeated the malicious prosecution claim

Ratio Decidendi

Where an informant swears an information alleging an offence within the magistrate's jurisdiction and the magistrate receives and considers it (takes cognizance), that act constitutes doing all that the informant could do to set the criminal law in motion and is sufficient to found an action for malicious prosecution if the other elements (malice, want of reasonable and probable cause, termination in favour and damage) are present.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment at trial restored (majority), Judson J. dissenting

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and trial judgment restored awarding $28,000 and costs to the plaintiff
  • Costs to the appellant in this Court and in the Court below