The case was argued last December before seven Supreme Court of Canada justices. (The Canadian Press)

A Saskatchewan Crown prosecutor did not maliciously prosecute people who were accused of sexually assaulting children two decades ago, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled.

Overturning a ruling by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal on Friday, the Supreme Court said the lower court erred when it found senior Crown prosecutor Matt Miazga acted out of malice.

"It is my view that there is no evidence to support a finding of malice or improper purpose," Justice Louise Charron wrote in the 27-page decision. Six other Supreme Court judges concurred in the unanimous decision.

Miazga is a senior Crown prosecutor in Saskatchewan's Ministry of Justice who prosecuted sexual assault charges against several adults more than a decade ago.

Crown prosecutor Matt Miazga did not maliciously prosecute sexual assault cases two decades ago, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday. (CBC)

Miazga wasn't available for comment, but his lawyer, Michael Tochor, said he would be greatly relieved after living with the consequences of the case for the past 16 years.

"It's like a 1,000-pound weight lifted off your shoulders," Tochor said.

The original criminal case was a media sensation in Saskatchewan as allegations emerged about satanic rituals and dead babies in secret rural locations.

In 1991, police and prosecutors decided to arrest 16 people and press more than 70 charges of sexual assault. Among those charged were biological parents, foster parents and extended family.

As the criminal cases worked through the court system, many charges were stayed or dismissed after a preliminary hearing. Ultimately, one person pleaded guilty to a charge.

Richard Klassen has been the most outspoken of the wrongly accused people who sued a Crown prosecutor, alleging malice. (CBC)

The three children later recanted their stories. Many of the accused, however, were devastated by the allegations.

"There is no question that the respondents were the victims of a clear miscarriage of justice which undoubtedly had a devastating effect on their lives," Charron wrote in the top court's decision. "Especially in the absence of an acquittal, it is often difficult for people wrongly accused of such crimes to fully regain their positions in society and free themselves from the stigma and trauma of those false allegations."

In 1994, Richard Klassen and others filed a lawsuit claiming malicious prosecution, naming police officials, a child therapist and the Crown.

The lawsuit took 10 years to conclude and, in 2003, a Saskatoon judge found authorities acted improperly.

The decision was challenged and Saskatchewan's Court of Appeal decided, in 2007, that the judgment against the child therapist should be set aside.

The court, however, upheld the judgment against Miazga, saying it was satisfied that Miazga's actions went "beyond bad judgment, negligence or recklessness and into the realm of malice."

The Supreme Court heard Miazga's appeal last December.

In the decision, Charron wrote that a key point was the absence of any "improper purpose" that might have motivated Miazga.

"Neither the plaintiffs nor the courts below have pointed to any such improper purpose that impelled Miazga to prosecute the respondents," she wrote.

The case attracted the attention of justice departments and Crown attorneys across Canada. Some were concerned that if the finding of malice were upheld, there might be a chilling effect that could hamper prosecutors from doing their jobs.

The Saskatchewan government negotiated a settlement with Klassen and the other members of the lawsuit in 2004.

The province agreed to pay compensation of $2.8 million "in recognition of Justice [George W.] Baynton's declaration the plaintiffs are innocent, and recognizing the pain and suffering and expense resulting from the prosecution and the civil action," according to a release at the time.

Klassen, who represented himself in the lawsuit against Miazga, said he's disappointed with the Supreme Court's ruling but he's glad he fought so long and hard to restore his own reputation.

"I would not have lived with being accused of being a child molester when you're not a child molester," he said. "How do you ever hold a child? How do you go through life? How are you going to have grandchildren? How are going to live with this?"