⚖️ CROWN ATTORNEY — POLICY VIOLATIONS — MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

ASHLEY DALE

Crown Attorney — Ministry of the Attorney General

ROLE: PROSECUTED FABRICATED CHARGES — "NOT WORTHY OF PURSUING"

CROWN

Position

4 YEARS

Prosecution Duration

ACQUITTAL

Case Outcome

DROPPED

"Not Worthy"

THE CROWN'S DUTY — VIOLATED

⚖️ R. v. Boucher (1954 SCC) — The Crown's Role

DUTY #1: Minister of Justice, Not Advocate

"The Crown counsel is not a partisan advocate seeking a conviction at all costs. They are a minister of justice whose function is to assist the court in arriving at the truth."

VIOLATION: Pursued fabricated charges for 4 years despite evidence of fabrication.

DUTY #2: Full Disclosure

R. v. Stinchcombe: Crown must disclose all relevant evidence, including evidence favorable to the accused.

VIOLATION: Evidence destroyed in 14 days. Did Crown disclose this? Did Crown object?

DUTY #3: Reasonable Prospect of Conviction

Crown Policy Manual: Charges should only proceed if there is a reasonable prospect of conviction AND prosecution is in the public interest.

VIOLATION: Case dropped as "not worthy of pursuing" — proof there was never a reasonable prospect.

DUTY #4: No Malicious Prosecution

Nelles v. Ontario (1989 SCC): Prosecutors can be held liable for malicious prosecution if they act without reasonable and probable cause.

VIOLATION: Ken Price acquittal proves the case was baseless from the start.

SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE

SG #AD-1 ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ IRREFUTABLE

"Not Worthy of Pursuing"

After 4 years of prosecution, the Crown's own words: "Not worthy of pursuing."

This is not "insufficient evidence discovered late." This is not "witness unavailable."
This is an admission that the case should never have been brought.

WHY DID IT TAKE 4 YEARS TO REALIZE THIS? Either the Crown knew from the start and proceeded anyway (malicious prosecution), or the Crown was incompetent (malpractice). Either way: liability.

SG #AD-2 ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ IRREFUTABLE

Ken Price Acquittal = No Crime = Fabrication

Ken Price was the alleged victim. His acquittal means:

• There was no crime committed against him
• Francesco could not have committed mischief against a non-victim
• The entire case was fabricated

Crown proceeded knowing this. Crown policy requires withdrawal when no reasonable prospect exists.

IF THERE WAS NO VICTIM, THERE WAS NO CRIME. If there was no crime, the charges were fabricated. If the charges were fabricated, the Crown is complicit.

SG #AD-3 ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ IRREFUTABLE

Evidence Destruction — Crown's Role

Evidence destroyed within 14 days of dismissal (vs. 2-year minimum retention).
79 files added 8 days after case closed.

The Crown has disclosure obligations. Did the Crown know about the destruction? Did the Crown object? Did the Crown notify the court?

SS&C Technologies, 2024 ONCA 675: Spoliation creates mandatory adverse inference. The Crown cannot benefit from evidence it allowed to be destroyed.

CRIMINAL & PROFESSIONAL VIOLATIONS

CRIMINAL CODE s.139

Obstruction of Justice

Up to 10 years — Prosecution of fabricated charges

CRIMINAL CODE s.122

Breach of Trust by Public Officer

Up to 5 years — Violation of Crown duties

NELLES v. ONTARIO

Malicious Prosecution

Civil liability — Prosecution without R&P cause

LSO RULES

Professional Misconduct

Suspension/Disbarment — Violation of Crown duties

CHARTER s. 7

Life, Liberty, Security

Constitutional remedy — 4 years of prosecution

CHARTER s. 11(b)

Trial Within Reasonable Time

Stay of proceedings — Jordan framework