Today I went to a Continuing Legal Education (CLE) at the Ontario Bar Association. The topic was “Criminal Law for Civil Litigators.” As a civil litigator who on occasion works with criminal defence lawyers, I must say I enjoyed learning about the interaction between criminal and civil proceedings arising from the same facts. In today’s blog, I’d like to talk about the difference between criminal proceedings and civil ones.
In a criminal proceeding, the state seeks to punish those who disregard the laws governing the public order. Of course, the state cannot exercise this power unless the accused is found guilty after a fair trial.
The threshold for finding an accused guilty is “beyond reasonable doubt,” which is very high indeed. Because of the coercive nature of a criminal proceeding (where the state prosecutes the accused), the accused is afforded many rights, including the right to remain silent and the right against self-incrimination. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the state also has an obligation to disclose all evidence against the accused, whether the state intends to rely on it during the trial or not.
In contrast, in a civil proceeding the plaintiffs seek remedies against the damages done by the defendants. Civil proceedings generally involve monetary damages, while a defendant’s liberty is seldom at stake.
The plaintiff will be successful if he or she can convince the court that he or she has proved the case on the balance of probabilities. To ensure speedy resolution of the disputes between the parties, procedural rules have been put in place. For example, the rules of discovery mandate that parties must disclose all relevant documents, whether they are favourable to the disclosing party or not.
