Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Criminal law - Jurisdiction - Appeal from Summary Conviction Appeal Court - Content of reasons for decision - Evidence - Character evidence - Credibility - Assessing credibility - Conflicting testimony of co-accused and complainant - Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to decide matters not decided in the court below when reviewing a summary conviction appeal decision - Whether a trial judge is obliged to consider the dual purpose of character evidence and provide adequate reasons for the rejection of such evidence - Whether the trial judge correctly evaluated credibility where the evidence of each co-accused contradicted both the evidence of the complainant and the other co-accused.

Flis, an off-duty officer of the Toronto Police Force, believed that he had identified a stolen van on his way home from work. He phoned 911 and followed the van, attempting a "take-down" and, when that failed, following the van. Upon locating it, begun "a search mission" without speaking to the police officers on the scene. Flis ran over to Ryan Scullion, who had not been involved, believing without a reasonable basis that Scullion might have been involved. He tackled Scullion to the ground and immediately subdued him. Grande, another off-duty officer of the Toronto Police Service unknown to Flis, joined them. Scullion reported that Grande punched him on the left side of the face and kicked him while he was still on the ground. Grande and Flis also punched and slapped him several times in the head and face. He suffered numerous injuries which were observed and photographed by police. He was released from the station without charges.

Flis and Grande were charged with assault and convicted. They appealed the conviction to the Summary Convictions Appeal Court, raising numerous grounds of appeal. The summary conviction appeal judge allowed the appeals, addressing only one of the issues. On his own motion, he entered a stay of proceedings, finding that further proceedings would be an abuse of process. On further appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Applicants made written submissions to the Court of Appeal on the remaining issues when the court invited them to do so. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the summary convictions judge pursuant to reasons addressing the proper treatment of character evidence and the grounds of appeal argued before but not decided by the summary conviction appeal judge. The convictions were restored, and the sentence appeals were remitted to the summary conviction appeal judge for determination.