Pate Estate v. Galway-Cavendish and Harvey (Township), 2013 ONCA 669 (Canlii).

In this case, John Pate, a 10-year employee of the Corporation of the Township of Galway-Cavendish and Harvey in Ontario, was fired in 1999. Pate, the building inspector for the Township, was dismissed on the alleged basis that the Township had uncovered discrepancies with his building permit fees. Pate was not provided with the details of these discrepancies. The employer told Pate that if he resigned, they would not contact the police. Pate refused to resign.

Pate was dismissed and the employer, after an investigation, turned over information to the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP). The Township then exerted some influence on senior OPP officials to lay charges, which they did. Pate went to trial against the OPP-based charges but was acquitted after only a four-day trial. Although the trial only lasted a few days, Pate was in the public spotlight from when he was wrongfully dismissed in 1999 until the end of the trial. He was unable to obtain employment in his field and passed away in January 2011.

After his acquittal in 2003, Pate sued the Township for wrongful dismissal malicious prosecution, and reputational injuries, as well as special damages for costs of the criminal 'trial defence costs, punitive damages, and aggravated damages.

In the first trial between Pate and Township in 2009, Pate was awarded a total award of $279,094 and 25,000 in punitive damages for his claim but the court denied the malicious prosecution claim.

Pate successfully appealed the Supreme Court of Ontario Court of Appeal on the grounds that the Court erred in not awarding him with malicious prosecution and for awarding hIrn only $25,000 in punitive damages. The appeal was _allowed and two re-trials were allowed on the separate issues of malicious prosecution and the low punitive amount.

Explain your understanding of this case and under which case this was filed in court.