Stephen Fredrick Gehl

The accused was charged with sexual assault arising from events that occurred in his bedroom after a high school prom on June 8, 2022.

The Crown alleged that the complainant was asleep and did not consent to sexual activity.

The defence contended that the sexual activity was consensual and that the complainant fabricated the allegation to counter the accused's allegation that she had been cheating on him.

The court found significant credibility issues with the complainant's evidence, including contradictions, inconsistencies, and conflicts with other evidence.

The accused's evidence, while containing some minor inconsistencies, was generally forthright and consistent.

The court found that the complainant's version of events could not be accepted beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the accused's evidence raised more than a reasonable doubt about whether the complainant was asleep and did not consent.

The accused was acquitted.

The defendant applied for a directed verdict of acquittal on two counts of operating a conveyance with THC in his blood exceeding 5.0 ng/mL, contrary to s. 320.14(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown conceded no liability for impairment but argued sufficient evidence for the THC concentration.

The court, applying the test for a directed verdict and considering the expert toxicologist's evidence regarding measurement uncertainty (specifically, the +/- 0.4 ng/mL margin of uncertainty on the 5.2 ng/mL reading), found that the Crown failed to negate the reasonable inference that the THC level could have been below 5.0 ng/mL.

Consequently, the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, and the motion for a directed verdict was granted, dismissing counts 1 and 3.

The appellant, convicted of sexual assault, appealed his conviction and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The appeal court dismissed the application for fresh evidence, finding it irrelevant, not credible, or not affecting the outcome.

The court also dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's credibility assessments, finding no palpable and overriding error, and rejecting arguments that the trial judge failed to consider the appellant's racialized background or relied on stereotypes.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for a violent assault due to schizophrenia, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to maintain his detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (a high-security facility) rather than transferring him to St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton (a medium-security facility closer to his family).

The Court of Appeal applied a reasonableness standard of review to the Board's disposition.

Given the appellant's history of violent and volatile behavior, fluctuating medication compliance, and St. Joseph's stated inability to manage him, the court found the Board's decision to keep him at Waypoint reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

Matthew Bilodeau appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his conditional discharge but reduced his reporting obligation, seeking an absolute discharge.

He argued the Board's finding that he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and speculative.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion reasonable and grounded in evidence, particularly concerning the severity of the index offence, the need for active monitoring due to his mental disorder, and the risks associated with medication non-compliance and the transition to a new therapeutic team.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for sexual assault, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his continued detention.

The primary issue was whether he should be transferred to a less secure facility.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board applied the correct legal standard of "least onerous and least restrictive" and that its decision, based on the assessment of expert evidence regarding the appellant's readiness for transfer, was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the continued detention.

This judgment addresses two pre-trial applications: the Crown's application for a support person for a complainant (C.C.) and the accused's alternate suspect application.

The parties consented to the support person application.

The accused sought to introduce J.W. as an alternate suspect for child pornography charges, arguing J.W. had motive and opportunity.

The court dismissed the alternate suspect application, finding insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable connection between J.W. and the crime, concluding the inferences amounted to speculation rather than an air of reality.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering detention in a secure forensic unit became moot upon the appellant's death while in custody.

The Court of Appeal considered whether special circumstances warranted proceeding with the appeal despite the general rule that appeals abate upon the death of the appellant.

Finding no systemic issues, legal questions of general public importance, or collateral consequences that would justify exercising discretion to hear the appeal, the court dismissed the appeal as abated.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated September 11, 2018, which found that the appellant continues to pose a risk of serious harm to the public and imposed a conditional discharge with reporting requirements and residence restrictions.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no material change in the appellant's condition since the previous disposition and no basis to challenge the Board's conclusion that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated a risk of serious harm if the appellant were released without conditions.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition finding that she continued to pose a significant threat to the safety of the community.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge despite having requested a conditional discharge from the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's finding of significant threat as reasonable, noting that although the appellant had complied with the conditional discharge order for almost a year, the Board had concerns regarding the serious nature of the index offence, the appellant's history of substance abuse, and her continuing mental health symptoms.

The court also noted that all parties had made a joint submission accepting significant threat as not an issue for the Board.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on charges of impaired operation of a motor vehicle and failing to comply with a breathalyzer demand.

The trial judge had directed a verdict of acquittal on the refusal charge at the close of the Crown's case and acquitted on the impaired driving charge after the respondent testified.

The appeal challenged the directed verdict, arguing an error in law, and the sufficiency of the trial judge's reasons for acquittal on impaired driving, alleging palpable and overriding error.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of evidence for the impaired driving charge, and that the trial judge was correct in granting the directed verdict for the refusal charge due to insufficient evidence to identify the demanding officer and the timing of the refusal.

Alternatively, if there was an error in the directed verdict, it did not impact the overall verdict and did not justify a retrial.

An appeal of a Criminal Code section 672.54(c) detention order made by the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant argued that the Board erred in concluding that he poses a significant risk to the public and that the Board committed a Carrick error by failing to make this determination independently of his admission.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while a Board must make its own determination of dangerousness, it is entitled to rely on counsel's credible acknowledgement that the significant threat standard has been met, provided the Board does not abdicate its responsibility to assess the evidence.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that found him to remain a significant threat to public safety and ordered a conditional discharge with monthly reporting requirements.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Board's conclusion was reasonable based on evidence that the appellant intended to discontinue medication if absolutely discharged, had persistent persecutory delusions, and had a history of cannabis use that exacerbated his mental condition.

The court found it reasonable for the Board to conclude that absolute discharge would likely result in medication cessation, decompensation, and increased risk of threatening behaviour.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that found him to remain a significant threat to public safety and ordered a conditional discharge with reporting and drug testing requirements.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for assault with a weapon in 2007, sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's disposition, finding that the Board's conclusion that the appellant would likely discontinue antipsychotic medication, increase cannabis use, and decompensate into psychosis was supported by evidence, including the appellant's lack of insight into his need for medication and his history of drug use.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated October 16, 2016.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge from a conditional discharge, arguing the Board's decision was unreasonable.

The Board upheld the conditional discharge, finding the appellant remained a significant threat based on expert evidence that absolute discharge would lead to medication non-compliance and increased marijuana use, resulting in decompensation and threatening behavior.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's disposition reasonable and supported by evidentiary foundation.

Derrick Lawlor, charged with first-degree murder, sought to exclude an audio-recorded statement made to police while he was a patient in a psychiatric unit.

The Crown sought a ruling that the statement was voluntary and admissible.

The court found the statement voluntary, noting Lawlor initiated contact with police and was not under detention for Charter purposes.

The court also rejected arguments that the police's failure to re-caution Lawlor when he made incriminating statements violated his right to a fair trial, concluding that Lawlor was committed to speaking to the police regardless.

The statement was ruled admissible.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple criminal charges arising from events in June, November 2015, and July 2016.

The charges included operating a motor vehicle while disqualified, obstruction of police, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The court imposed a global sentence of 26 months imprisonment, with 16 months remaining to be served after crediting enhanced pre-trial custody.

The sentence was followed by three years of probation and a three-year driving prohibition.

The court emphasized principles of general and specific deterrence, denunciation, and the serious nature of firearm offences, while also considering mitigating factors including guilty pleas, remorse, family support, and rehabilitation potential.

The applicant, Anthony Edward Ringel, brought two pretrial applications: one challenging the constitutionality of section 579(2) of the Criminal Code, which deals with stays of proceedings, and another seeking to exclude inculpatory statements made to undercover officers in 2013 on the basis of "tainting" by previously excluded 2004 confessions.

The court dismissed both applications.

It found section 579(2) of the Criminal Code to be constitutional, reaffirming that a stay of proceedings does not equate to an acquittal and does not inherently violate Charter rights under sections 7, 11(b), or 11(h).

Regarding the tainting application, the court found no sufficient temporal, contextual, or strong causal connection between the 2004 excluded confessions and the 2013 admissions to undercover officers, thus ruling the 2013 statements admissible.

The accused pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 and uttering a forged document.

While employed as a bookkeeper for a property management company, she defrauded the company and various condominium corporations of approximately $340,000 over a nine-month period.

The accused sent the funds to an individual she met online and believed she was helping someone in distress who would repay her.

The court imposed a 12-month custodial sentence followed by three years' probation, finding that denunciation and general deterrence required incarceration despite significant mitigating factors including genuine remorse, good character, and the accused's own victimization by an online romance scam.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of sexual interference contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code involving a child victim over a period from January 2008 to December 2010.

Following a Gardiner hearing, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed numerous sexual assaults and acts of sexual interference against the victim, including sexual intercourse, oral sex, and anal sex, as well as creation of child pornography.

The accused held a position of trust as the victim's stepfather.

The court imposed a sentence of six years' imprisonment, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, Sex Offender Information Registration Act compliance, a section 161 prohibition order for ten years, and a no-contact order during incarceration.