Canada: Criminal Acts In A Tortious Context

Last Updated: April 17 2012
Article by Andrew C. Murray


When acting for plaintiffs, there will be occasions when criminal conduct (or allegations of criminal conduct) become key issues in the civil action. The alleged criminal conduct may be directed at the plaintiff or defendant, with differing consequences. Examples of the interaction of criminal law and civil law include:

  • an allegation of arson in a civil fire loss case ·
  • allegations of fraud
  • impaired driving in a motor vehicle claim
  • sexual assault

This article reviews some recent pronouncements by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Plester v. Wawanesa1, along with some other recent and older though useful authorities that should be considered when criminal conduct intersects with a civil claim.


In civil cases, character evidence is generally excluded on grounds of relevance.2 There are exceptions to this general rule, in defamation cases, where the character of a plaintiff may be put in issue by the defendant, or in a fire loss claim, where the defendant insurer has made an allegation of arson against the homeowner. Presumably, the same principle could apply to other cases where fraud is alleged against the plaintiff. In Plester v. Wawanesa, the Court of Appeal reviewed the trial decision of Jenkins, J. who allowed the plaintiffs to call character evidence in order to rebut allegations of arson. Justice Jenkins had ruled:

Evidence of good character is routinely admitted in criminal cases, and, since the defendant is alleging that the plaintiffs in these actions committed criminal acts, I see no reason why they should not be permitted to call evidence of their general reputation in the community. I, therefore, order that the plaintiffs be permitted to call such evidence at the trial of these actions.

The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err in admitting character evidence. Once there was an allegation of arson, character evidence was permissible in order to respond to that allegation, with the same kind of evidence that would be available in a criminal court when facing an allegation of arson.

Extrapolating from this recent appellate decision, it would seem reasonable that the calling of character evidence should be permitted not only in a fire loss case where arson has been alleged, but other types of property claims where fraudulent acts have been alleged.

Expanding the concept further, in a personal injury lawsuit, where the defence alleges that the plaintiff is malingering or exaggerating, or otherwise fraudulently claiming certain incapacities, query whether the door has now been opened to include, as part of the plaintiff's case, a roster of witnesses whose sole purpose is to proffer character evidence on behalf of the injured plaintiff. The application may be restricted to cases where there is a specific allegation pleaded in the Statement of Defence; although it is a rare defence pleading that does not at least allege that the claims are exaggerated.


There will be times when a criminal conviction has already been registered against one party in a civil action.

Where an individual has been convicted of an offence, that conviction may be proved by tendering a certificate which contains "the substance and effect only, omitting the formal part of the charge and of the conviction, that is signed by the officer having the custody of the records of the court of which the offender was convicted, or by the deputy of the officer".3

The Evidence Act goes on to provide that such a certificate, once tendered, is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the crime was actually committed by the person, if:

  1. no appeal of the conviction or discharge was taken and the time for an appeal has expired; or
  2. an appeal of the conviction or discharge was taken but was dismissed or abandoned and no further appeal is available.4

This provision applies whether or not the convicted or discharged person is a party to the civil proceeding itself.5

It will be helpful in any file where a conviction has been registered against the opposing party, to obtain as part of the routine work-up in the file the necessary certificate of conviction. In this way, the appropriate evidence will be available at trial to contradict the witness, should he or she deny the fact of a conviction or refuse to answer a question relating to it.


In Plester, the trial judge awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs up to the date of service of a Rule 49 offer, and substantial indemnity costs thereafter. In declining to award substantial indemnity costs throughout, the trial judge indicated that, although the actions of Wawanesa in denying the claim were unjustified, it should not be penalized a second time with respect to the costs of the action, having regard to the fact that punitive damages were awarded by the jury.

The Court of Appeal was asked to address whether the Plesters were indeed entitled to substantial indemnity costs throughout, since they had been wrongly accused of being arsonists.

The Court of Appeal noted with approval the commentary on the subject by Mark Orkin in the Law of Costs6. Orkin has observed that, while some courts have declined to award both punitive damages and solicitor and client costs, the better view appears to be that the two issues are legally distinct. The issue of indemnifying a plaintiff for legal costs is sufficiently distinct from punishing a defendant for misconduct that an award of punitive damages should not automatically preclude the awarding of solicitor and client costs. Orkin does further note, however, that the awarding of costs itself is a discretionary matter which, by definition, is not governed by a set of rigid rules.

While acknowledging Orkin's suggestion about the "better view", the Court of Appeal nonetheless declined to interfere with the trial judge's cost order. Rather, it noted that there are cases where the fact of an award of punitive damages will militate against an award of substantial indemnity costs, and that an award of substantial indemnity costs is not automatic, even where there are allegations of serious wrongdoing such as arson. The Court of Appeal was not persuaded that the trial judge erred in principle or that he exercised his discretion on an improper basis.

Given that the Ontario Court of Appeal has stated that substantial indemnity costs are not a given even where an allegation of serious criminal conduct has not been borne out, you are well advised to prepare and serve a formal offer to settle at the earliest possible date, in order to maximize your cost recovery. Many property loss claims are for liquidated damages, or at least have a major liquidated damage component, which can be quantified when, or soon after, the claim is issued.


When a criminal or quasi-criminal act has been committed, it may have ramifications in a civil context by creating a situation where the principles of res judicata or issue estoppel will apply. Issue estoppel can apply more broadly so that it might also have application to administrative tribunals dealing with the same issue.

The leading case dealing with the issue of res judicata following a criminal conviction and a subsequent civil action is Demeter v. British Pacific Life Insurance Company7. Demeter commenced an action against his own insurer, claiming the proceeds of his wife's life insurance policies. He had previously been convicted of murdering his wife. He made it clear that he intended to use his action against his insurers to demonstrate that he had been wrongly convicted. His motive for instituting the action played a significant role in the ultimate finding that the action constituted an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal determined that the use of a civil action to initiate a collateral attack on a criminal conviction, in the absence of fresh evidence or evidence of fraud or collusion, amounted to an abuse of process. In fact, the court said that it was not persuaded that there was "the slightest merit in the appeal". It would be an affront to one's sense of justice to let the action go forward.

Consequently, the test for establishing whether issue estoppel applies is whether:

  1. The same question has been decided in the earlier proceedings;
  2. The earlier decision was a final judicial decision;
  3. The parties to the decision, or their privies, are the same in both proceedings.

A conviction has a greater likelihood of triggering issue estoppel than does the discharge from a criminal or quasi-criminal offence. In Schweneke v. Ontario 8, the Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed the effect of a discharge following a preliminary inquiry on criminal charges.9 The plaintiff had been terminated from a position of employment that he held with the Government of Ontario, after it was alleged that he defrauded the government by obtaining reimbursement for expenses from both Ontario and from a German company by whom it was alleged he was secretly and simultaneously employed. He was discharged at the preliminary hearing on all counts because insufficient evidence was presented to take the matter to a jury (which is the necessary test on a preliminary inquiry in order to have the matter proceed on to trial).

In the civil context, the plaintiff argued that his discharge from the criminal courts created an issue estoppel argument in his favour with respect to the wrongdoing that had been alleged against him as the cause for his dismissal. The Ontario Court of Appeal had this to say about the effect of his discharge:

The outcome of the preliminary inquiry has no relevance in the exercise of the discretion to refuse to apply the doctrine of issue estoppel. The discharge at the preliminary inquiry says no more than that the Crown had failed to put forward a prima facie case of criminal fraud. It does not, in our view, say anything about whether the appellant was in fact working for both the Ontario government and a German entity at the same time. The discharge at the preliminary inquiry does not detract from the findings of fact made by the Umpire. The outcome of the preliminary inquiry should have no effect on the applicability of issue estoppel arising out of the findings made by the Board and the Umpire.

In Toronto v. Canadian Union of Public Employees10, a litigant sought to re-try an issue where there had already been a criminal conviction.

Glenn Oliver worked for the City of Toronto as a Recreation Instructor. He was charged with sexually assaulting a young boy over a two-year period of time. Oliver pleaded not guilty. The complainant testified at trial and was cross-examined. Oliver was convicted and a sentence of 15 months was imposed. His appeal from conviction and sentence to the Ontario Court of Appeal was dismissed.

A few days after Oliver's conviction, the City of Toronto fired him. His union, CUPE, grieved the matter on his behalf, with the matter ultimately proceeding to a grievance arbitration.

The Arbitrator who heard the matter ultimately rejected the findings reached in the criminal trial and made a credibility finding in favour of Oliver, even though the complainant did not testify during the arbitration.

The Ontario Court of Appeal directed itself to Section 22.1 of the Evidence Act, which was discussed earlier in this article. The Court of Appeal noted that the doctrine of issue estoppel only applied where the parties to the second proceeding were parties, or privies of parties, to the first proceeding. Even if it could be accepted that CUPE was Oliver's privy, the City of Toronto played no role in the criminal proceedings and had no relationship to the Crown. Consequently, the doctrine of issue estoppel itself was found not to apply. The court, nonetheless, looked at the rationale behind res judicata, and indicated a willingness to preclude re-litigation in circumstances which do not quite come within the res judicata criteria, but on which the policy considerations barring relitigation still operate as strongly as they would in cases captured by the res judicata doctrine.

It was held that the Arbitrator erred in law in permitting CUPE to re-litigate Oliver's culpability. The Arbitrator should have held that Oliver's conviction established that he had sexually assaulted the complainant for the purposes of the arbitration. Based on that finding, any conclusion other than that the City of Toronto had established just cause for Oliver's dismissal would be patently unreasonable.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has just released a decision dealing with the extent to which a defendant in a civil action is entitled to attack the basis of his prior criminal conviction founded on the same circumstances as those alleged in the civil case.11 In 1995, H.C.A. was convicted of sexually assaulting his young daughter.12 He unsuccessfully appealed the conviction in 1998, notwithstanding an attempt to file "fresh evidence" with the Court of Appeal. A civil action was later commenced in relation to the repeated sexual assaults perpetrated by him on his daughter. During the course of the civil trial, H.C.A. elicited evidence from his two sons, who each testified it was they, not their father, who had assaulted the plaintiff. The trial judge found the plaintiff was not a credible witness and dismissed the action. This was the same evidence which was rejected as fresh evidence in the earlier criminal appeal. The Court of Appeal determined that the circumstances of the case were such that the doctrine of abuse of process ought to have precluded H.C.A. from contesting the facts underlying his conviction. It was an error for the trial judge to have proceeded in a fashion so as to essentially re-litigate the criminal trial, bringing about a different result and undermining the credibility of the judicial process.

As it relates to criminal or quasi-criminal decisions, re-litigation of the facts underlying a conviction can be avoided if the civil court is satisfied that the same question has already been decided in the earlier proceedings, and that the same parties are before the court. For this reason, it likely is helpful to have the "complainant" participate in the criminal or quasi-criminal trial proceeding, giving much greater force to the argument that the same parties were involved.


When representing a plaintiff who is the victim of a criminal act, do not overlook the Victims' Bill of Rights, 199513. This Act applies to a victim of crime ( i.e. "a person who, as a result of the commission of a crime by another, suffers...physical harm...or economic harm...").

In a civil proceeding, a person convicted of a prescribed crime is liable in damages to every victim of the crime for emotional distress and bodily harm resulting from the distress arising from the commission of the crime. Moreover, victims of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault, or the victim of a common assault if the victim is a spouse, are all victims who shall be presumed to have suffered emotional distress.14

Section 4 of the Act has an interesting provision that many people may not be aware of with respect to costs when advancing a civil claim on behalf of a victim of crime. The Act provides:

A judge who makes an order for costs in favour of a victim shall make the order on a solicitor and client basis, unless the judge considers that to do so would not be in the interests of justice.

Section 4 also provides for guidelines that favour the victim with respect to security for costs orders and prejudgment interest.


Allegations of wrongdoing in property claims or insurance claims can have a significant impact when made before a jury. It may also weaken the resolve of a risk-adverse plaintiff who is unfairly tarred with the brush of suspicion. At least insofar as one's ability to call character evidence is concerned, the playing field has been levelled somewhat by allowing a plaintiff, in a civil forum, to defend himself or herself by calling witnesses to testify as to good character.

There are, of course, opportunities to refer to the criminal acts committed by a defendant. This article has also suggested some of the ways in which a defendant's criminal conviction can be introduced and used to good effect in the subsequent civil matter. As with all aspects of your practice, being creative and continuing to think outside the box when dealing with issues involving criminal conduct, whether allegations or convictions, will increase the opportunities for a better outcome.


1 unreported decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal released May 31, 2006

2 Deep v. Wood (1983), 143 D.L.R. (3d) 246 (Ont.C.A.) at 250

3 The Ontario Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.A.23, as amended, s.22

4 The Ontario Evidence Act, supra, s.22.1

5 The Ontario Evidence Act, supra, s.22.1(2)

6 Loose-leaf (Aurora: Canada Law Book, 205) at paragraph 219.1.2

7 (1983), 43 O.R. (2nd) 33 (H.C.J.) affirmed (1984) 48 O.R. (2nd) 266 (C.A.)

8 (2000), 47 O.R. (3rd) 97

9 See paragraph 64 of the decision

10 (2001), 55 O.R. (3rd) 541 (C.A.)

11 W.H. v. H.C.A. Jr. unreported decision of Gillese, Blair and LaForme JJ.A. released August 15, 2006

12 No defence evidence was called at the criminal trial from Mr. H.C.A. Jr. or any other witness.

13 S.O. 1995, Chapter 6

14 Victims' Bill of Rights, supra, s.3

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Andrew C. Murray
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.