ARTICLE
21 December 2016

Kukemueller V Ontario (Community Safety And Correctional Services): Deciding A Moot Appeal To Clarify The Law

OH
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP

Contributor

Osler is a leading law firm with a singular focus – your business. Our collaborative “one firm” approach draws on the expertise of over 400 lawyers to provide responsive, proactive and practical legal solutions driven by your business needs. It’s law that works.
In Kukemueller v Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2016 ONCA 451, the Court of Appeal for Ontario provided brief reasons allowing an appeal even though it had become moot.
Canada Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

In Kukemueller v Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2016 ONCA 451, the Court of Appeal for Ontario provided brief reasons allowing an appeal even though it had become moot. The Court stated that it was addressing the merits of the appeal, "even though the action has been discontinued, in order to clarify the law."

On the merits, the Court held that s. 8 of the Ministry of the Attorney General Act gives individual Crown Attorneys immunity from actions for damages alleging prosecutorial misconduct, and that the motion judge relied on cases predating s. 8's enactment when coming to the opposite conclusion.

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More