Can I initiate prosecution for a lie in a sworn affidavit that I relied on?

Question

Let's say someone provided me a sworn affidavit that I relied on (in case it matters, this is for a landlord/tenant matter). I later find very good evidence that the statement in the affidavit was, in fact, a lie. Other than any civil remedies that may be available to me, can I somehow initiate a criminal prosecution against the person who lied? Or perhaps there's some process to petition a prosecutor to initiate such prosecution? (If nothing like this is available, is there any real advantage to requiring a sworn affidavit as opposed to a regular signed statement?)

An answer for Ontario, Canada would be ideal, but failing that any Canadian or US-based answers are welcome.

Answer 1

ontario

Prosecutions in Ontario are almost entirely initiated by prosecutors, at their discretion, based on information provided to them by an investigating officer. Thus, the typical avenue is to make a police report.

There is a very narrow and rarely used avenue for a private citizen to bring a private prosecution. In almost every private prosecution that is initiated, the Attorney General of Ontario will take charge of the prosecution and make an independent decision about whether to pursue or withdraw the charge.

See Ontario, Private Prosecutions; and Ontario Crown Prosecution Manual: Private Prosecutions.

Answer 2

The police initiate prosecutions

While some jurisdictions, including ontario, allow the initiation of private prosecutions, they are almost universally taken over by the state and pursued if they have merit and withdrawn if they don’t.

Perjury is an extremely difficult crime to prove because it has two elements: 1. That the affidavit contains a material statement that is untrue, and 2. That the witness knew it was untrue at the time it was made and persisted in holding to that statement when cross-examined on the matter.

So, if the witness misremembered, or believed something that wasn’t true, that’s not perjury. Nor is it perjury if the statement was never contested in court - if the other side lets the statement stand without challenge, then it’s legally true even if it’s factually false. It’s also not perjury if the witness concedes that they might have been wrong when challenged.

Suing the witness

There is a long line of case law going back to the reign of Elizabeth I that witnesses have immunity for their testimony.

A limited number of jurisdictions have statutory carve-outs where a witness has committed perjury with malice. So, in addition to proving perjury (albeit on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt), you must also prove that they did so with the intent to cause you harm specifically.