"There is no question that the respondents were the victims of a clear miscarriage of justice which undoubtedly had a devastating effect on their lives. ... Especially in the absence of an acquittal, it is often difficult for people wrongly accused of such crimes to fully regain their positions in society and free themselves from the stigma and trauma of those false allegations. The fact that we now know that the children's allegations of sexual abuse were false, however, does not provide the answer to whether the respondents' action in malicious prosecution against the Crown prosecutor can succeed. ... It is my view that there is no evidence to support a finding of malice or improper purpose. In light of the respondents' failure to prove malice, it is not necessary to determine whether there was a lack of reasonable and probable grounds to proceed at the time Miazga initiated the prosecution more than 18 years ago. ... Given that the children's allegations are now known to have been false, no useful purpose would be served by revisiting 'the facts' as they appeared at that time."

The ruling will not affect the settlement payments previously made to the families.

Jennifer Graham, writing for the Canadian Press, wrote:

"Justice Charron said the sex abuse accusations had to be put in the context of the early 1990s. At the time, the rules of evidence had changed, eliminating the requirement for corroboration of unsworn evidence of children. There was also a prevailing and pervasive doctrine, now debunked but popular among child psychologists at the time, that 'children don't lie about abuse'." ₉