Police officers can't sue Crown prosecutors for how case was conducted, Canada's top court rules

The Supreme Court of Canada has ended a bid by Toronto cops to sue over the actions of Crown prosecutors that the officers say damaged their reputations.

Officers say actions of lawyers damaged their reputations

Today's Supreme Court decision comes in the case of three Toronto police officers who were accused of assaulting two men. (Patrick Morrell/CBC)

The Supreme Court of Canada has ended a bid by Toronto police members to sue over the actions of Crown prosecutors that the officers say damaged their reputations.

In its 8-1 decision Friday, the high court stressed the importance of prosecutorial independence and objectivity in ensuring the integrity of the justice system.

The case began when the Toronto officers were accused of assaulting two men, Randy Maharaj and Neil Singh, they had arrested for robbery in 2009.

The allegations against the officers led to Maharaj's charges being stayed and the eventual setting aside of Singh's conviction.

The three police officers filed a lawsuit in 2016 alleging Crown attorneys failed to put forward evidence that contradicted the assault claims.

A judge struck out their claim of negligence but allowed an allegation of misfeasance in public office — knowingly engaging in unlawful conduct — to proceed, a decision upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

In their statement of claim, the police officers — Sgt. Jamie Clark, Det. Sgt. Donald Belanger and Det. Sgt. Steven Watts — alleged they had suffered harms including significant depression, emotional trauma and irreparable damage to their reputations and credibility.

They said they had been subject to ridicule and contempt, and would face this prejudice for the rest of their careers.

Canada's top court nixed claim 

The Supreme Court nixed the officers' claim, saying that allowing police to sue the Crown for misfeasance related to prosecutors' decision-making would undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system.

In writing for the majority, Justice Rosalie Abella said one of the critical dimensions of a prosecutor's independence protected by immunity is, in fact, independence from the police.

"The police role is to investigate crime," Abella wrote. "The Crown prosecutor's role, on the other hand, is to assess whether a prosecution is in the public interest and, if so, to carry out that prosecution in accordance with the prosecutor's duties to the administration of justice and the accused."

The police certainly have a legitimate expectation and interest in their reputations not being unfairly impaired, Abella said.

"But the solution cannot be to make prosecutors accountable to them in a way that obliterates the independence between the police and prosecutors and is inconsistent with the Crown's core public duties to the administration of justice and to the accused."

However, she indicated the Crown is not completely immune from scrutiny by the courts, noting the public interest in ensuring accountability for malicious prosecution.

In the case of the Toronto police, Abella said, "the public interest argues against, not in favour of piercing prosecutorial immunity."


To encourage thoughtful and respectful conversations, first and last names will appear with each submission to CBC/Radio-Canada's online communities (except in children and youth-oriented communities). Pseudonyms will no longer be permitted.

By submitting a comment, you accept that CBC has the right to reproduce and publish that comment in whole or in part, in any manner CBC chooses. Please note that CBC does not endorse the opinions expressed in comments. Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time.

Become a CBC Member

Join the conversationCreate account

Already have an account?