What are the elements of a successful claim for damages for malicious prosecution?

The motions judge referred to the decision in Nelles v. Ontario, 1989 CanLII 77 (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170 with respect to the elements of a successful claim for damages for malicious prosecution. In that case, Lamer J., speaking on behalf of a plurality of the panel, said at pp. 192 and 193: 2. The Tort of Malicious Prosecution There are four necessary elements which must be proved for a plaintiff to succeed in an action for malicious prosecution: a) the proceedings must have been initiated by the defendant; b) the procedings must have terminated in favour of the plaintiff; c) the absence of reasonable and probable cause; d) malice, or a primary purpose other than that of carrying the law into effect. (See J. G. Fleming, The Law of Torts (5th ed. 1977, at p. 598.) The first two elements are straightforward and largely speak for themselves. The latter two elements require explicit discussion. Reasonable and probable cause has been defined as "an honest belief in the guilt of the accused based upon a full conviction, founded on reasonable grounds, of the existence of a state of circumstances, which, assuming them to be true, would reasonably lead any ordinarily prudent and cautious man, placed in the position of the accuser, to the conclusion that the person charged was probably guilty of the crime imputed" (Hicks v. Faulkner (1878), 8 Q.B.D. 167, at p. 171, Hawkins J.) This test contains both a subjective and objective element. There must be both actual belief on the part of the prosecutor and that belief must be reasonable in the circumstances. The existence of reasonable and probable cause is a matter for the judge to decide as opposed to the jury.