Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Brice Arsène Piyau filed a civil liability claim of approximately $14.6 million against the Procureur général du Québec, alleging faults by both the Sûreté du Québec and the Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales following his acquittal on charges of fraud and money laundering.
• The central issue regarding police conduct was whether investigator Alain Ferland met the standard of a reasonably prudent and diligent officer in conducting his investigation.
• Crown prosecutors' liability turned on whether they had reasonable and probable grounds to prosecute and whether they acted with malicious intent for an illegitimate purpose.
• A secondary issue concerned whether the DPCP breached its disclosure obligations by withholding evidence material to the accused's full answer and defence.
• Piyau's acquittal stemmed not from any fault by investigators or prosecutors, but from the unavailability of the key witness, Suzanne Côté, who was no longer able to testify on the eve of trial.
• The court found that Piyau failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, any fault on the part of either the police or the Crown prosecutors.

Facts of the case

Between 2006 and 2010, Mario Boilard and his wife Suzanne Côté — both owners of the building where Brice Arsène Piyau resided — were drawn into a project proposed by their tenant. Piyau represented that he intended to operate a mine and import diamonds and gold into Canada from his country of origin, the Central African Republic. Over this period, the couple lent or invested approximately $1.4 million in Piyau. They never recovered any of this money; Piyau declared insolvency and filed for bankruptcy in April 2011. Alleging they had been defrauded through Piyau's misrepresentations and schemes, Boilard and Côté filed a complaint with the Sûreté du Québec. Investigator Alain Ferland, a fraud specialist, took charge of the file and conducted his investigation principally between May 2010 and October 2014. The work was complex, involving numerous financial transactions across several countries and multiple individuals. Ferland consulted DPCP prosecutors on many occasions and produced several supplementary investigation reports.

At the conclusion of his investigation, Ferland concluded that Piyau had defrauded the complainants and forwarded his findings to the DPCP. Crown prosecutor Me Guillaume Michaud, a fraud specialist, reviewed the file, requested additional investigation reports, and in October 2014 signed an authorization of complaint leading to a formal charge of fraud against Piyau under s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. Me Michaud was satisfied that the evidence was sufficient to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Following the suicide of Mario Boilard in April 2014, Me Michaud reassessed the file and concluded he could still sustain the case, relying in part on the testimony of Boilard's widow. At the preliminary inquiry held on 27, 28, and 29 March 2017, an additional charge of money laundering under s. 462.31(2)(a) of the Criminal Code was added with the court's authorization. Notably, Piyau himself consented to being committed to trial at the conclusion of the preliminary inquiry. The trial was scheduled to begin on 15 October 2018. However, on 4 October 2018, new DPCP prosecutor Me Juan Manzano met with Suzanne Côté and investigator Ferland, and determined that Côté was no longer capable of testifying — she was fatigued, suffered significant memory lapses, and was unwilling to relive the experience. Without her testimony, the prosecution could not establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt. On 5 October 2018, Me Manzano informed the court that the charges against Piyau were being withdrawn, resulting in his acquittal. Three years later, Piyau launched a civil suit of nearly $14.6 million against the Procureur général du Québec, which represented both the SQ and the DPCP in these proceedings.

Legal provisions and standards at issue

The claim was grounded in Article 1457 of the Civil Code of Québec, which imposes a general duty of care: every person must respect rules of conduct applicable to them so as not to cause injury to another, and is liable for prejudice caused by any failure to meet that duty. The liability standard applicable to police officers required Piyau to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, a breach of professional duty (fault), a prejudice, and a causal link. The applicable conduct standard was that of a reasonably prudent and diligent police officer, assessed at the time of the impugned act — not retrospectively. For Crown prosecutors, the framework derived from the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in Nelles, Proulx, and Miazga: prosecutorial decisions attract qualified immunity, and liability arises only in exceptional circumstances where the plaintiff establishes that the prosecution lacked reasonable and probable grounds and was initiated with malicious intent or for an illegitimate purpose. On the disclosure issue, the standard from Henry v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 24, required Piyau to show that the DPCP deliberately withheld information, that prosecutors knew or should have known the information was material to the defence, that the non-disclosure infringed his right to make full answer and defence, and that he suffered prejudice as a result.

Court's reasoning and analysis

On the question of police liability, the court found that investigator Ferland conducted a thorough and rigorous investigation. He obtained numerous production orders to corroborate the complainants' version of events, consulted specialized fraud prosecutors at the DPCP throughout, and accumulated sufficient evidence to form reasonable and probable grounds that an offence had been committed. The court noted that justices of the peace had independently authorized the various production orders, and that a review of the voluminous documentation confirmed Piyau had received significant sums from the complainants and used them for purposes other than those intended. The court found it particularly telling that Piyau himself consented to committal for trial at the preliminary inquiry, and admitted at trial that the matter "merited a hearing on the merits." The court concluded that a reasonable person in Ferland's position could certainly have found grounds to proceed with an arrest, and that Piyau entirely failed to establish any police fault.

On prosecutorial liability, the court applied the strict framework from Miazga and found that Piyau produced absolutely no evidence of wrongful conduct by any of the DPCP prosecutors who handled his file. On the contrary, the court found that each prosecutor had acted with objectivity, neutrality, and professionalism — including the decision to withdraw charges once it became clear that the principal witness could no longer testify. The court held that this conduct was exemplary and entirely inconsistent with the bad faith or malicious intent required to ground liability. On the disclosure issue, the court found that Piyau's complaints concerned documents unrelated to the criminal investigation or documents he could have obtained himself, and that in any event no prejudice could arise given that he was acquitted. The court further observed that the claimed damages were unsupported by any probative evidence and rested entirely on hypotheses, conjectures, and speculation, with no causal connection to any proven fault.

Ruling and outcome

The Superior Court of Québec, per the Honourable Justice Jacques G. Bouchard, rejected Piyau's claim in its entirety. The Procureur général du Québec was the successful party. The court dismissed the action and ordered costs against Piyau. No monetary award was granted in Piyau's favour.