Yesterday I wrote about the difference between criminal proceedings and civil proceedings. (Click here to read the post.) Today I’d like to explore the topic further and talk about the role of criminal convictions in civil proceedings.

Because in criminal cases, the state must prove the case “beyond reasonable doubt,” the threshold for a conviction is very high. But in civil cases, a plaintiff only has to prove his or her case on the balance of probabilities.

Under the legislation in Ontario, if an accused is convicted and subsequently sued, the criminal conviction is admissible as evidence, the prima facie (on the face of it) proof of the accused/defendant’s liability. The accused/defendant will not be allowed to re-litigate his or her case in the civil court, unless there is compelling fresh evidence that may cast serious doubt on the conviction.

What if the accused is acquitted in the criminal proceeding, and is subsequently sued?

In this case the state has failed to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, it doesn’t mean that the plaintiff in the civil proceeding cannot prove his or her case against the accused on the balance of probabilities. Therefore, the accused’s acquittal does not bar the plaintiff’s claim in a civil proceeding. For example, O.J. Simpson was acquitted in his criminal trial. Nonetheless, in the civil action against him, the plaintiffs were successful in proving their case and were awarded with damages.

That said, I hope you will never be sued, let alone convicted. On the other hand, if you are considering suing somone who has been convicted, please don’t hesitate to give me a call.