0

This one pertains to Canadian Law:

Can one have a case in which an employee for a company performed an act in malice that caused injury to a party.

Then that party puts forward a criminal case against the employee (for jail time), but ALSO put forward another case as civil lawsuit to the company (aiming for monetary damages), for it's lack of oversight & encouraging the employee's attitude.

Is the party going about this the right way?

1
  • 4
    Although private prosecution technically exists in Canada, in reality most charges are brought by Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Attorney General of one of her provinces (or in some cases the federal Attorney General). Even private prosecutions are subject to approval of the Crown who can take over and discontinue prosecution for public interest.
    – xngtng
    Jun 3 at 7:58

2 Answers 2

2

Can one have a case in which an employee for a company performed an act in malice that caused injury to a party.

Then that party puts forward a criminal case against the employee (for jail time), but ALSO put forward another case as civil lawsuit to the company (aiming for monetary damages), for it's lack of oversight & encouraging the employee's attitude.

The Crown (i.e. the government) prosecutes and controls a criminal case. A civil case is commenced and litigated by a private party. Generally speaking, in this situation, a private party can't initiate or control the litigation of the criminal case.

A private party can ask that the government bring a criminal case, but the government doesn't have to cooperate, and the private party still has no say in how the criminal case in managed.

Often, civil cases are stayed while a related criminal case is pending, but that is a discretionary determination made on a case by case basis by a judge in the civil case. Criminal cases are almost never stayed due to a pending civil case.

It isn't improper to bring a civil case regarding circumstances that are also the subject of a criminal case, however.

If the criminal case results in a conviction, any determinations that were necessary to that conviction are considered proved as a matter of law without any further presentation of evidence or room for appeal, in the civil case, due to a doctrine historically called "collateral estoppel." This simplification of the civil case if there is a conviction is one of the reasons that the civil case is often stayed pending an outcome for the criminal case.

-2

It seems unwise

An employer is vicariously liable for the actions of an employee unless they are on a frolic of their own. Engaging in criminal behaviour that the employer neither authorised nor condoned is pretty much in frolic territory. If the win the criminal case, they sink the civil one.

2
  • 1
    Is there Canadian law supporting the proposition that criminal activity is necessarily (or even "pretty much") a frolic? In the United States, at least, the law is such that employees quite frequently commit crimes within the scope of their employment: improperly dumping waste, wage theft, antitrust violations, assaulting rowdy patrons, etc.
    – bdb484
    Jun 3 at 18:42
  • I already said that the company in good parts encouraged such attitude. To provide more info, employee is casually relegated to do similar "dirty work".
    – Dehbop
    Jun 8 at 5:36

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.