No stand alone claim for malice

Hinds v. Group 4 Security, 2012 ONCA 207 is a malicious prosecution case. In order to succeed on such a claim there must be evidence of causation. Mere malice does not suffice -- there must be actions which lead to damages:


[10]         Further, the motion judge goes on to correctly note that while there is a civil claim in malicious prosecution, the law does not recognise a discrete action for malice.  In his claims of negligence or malicious prosecution the appellant had to show a causal link between the damage allegedly suffered and the respondents: Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 333, paras. 21-23.