Stephen Fredrick Gehl

The Crown appealed directed and trial acquittals arising from a fatal collision in which the respondent accelerated through an intersection and struck a left-turning vehicle, causing one death and one serious injury.

On the impaired driving counts, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in law by concluding that the evidentiary presumption in s. 320.31(2) of the Criminal Code could not apply because the blood samples were seized under a s. 487 warrant rather than under Part VIII.1.

On the dangerous driving counts, the court held that the trial judge misapplied the Roy mens rea analysis by focusing unduly on the other driver’s conduct instead of assessing whether the respondent’s manner of driving created foreseeable and avoidable risks to the public when all relevant evidence was considered.

All four counts were remitted for a new trial.

The hospital notified the Ontario Review Board that the accused, who was subject to a disposition ordering his detention, had been placed in seclusion for a period exceeding seven days following an incident where he attempted to punch a staff member.

The Board convened a hearing to review the restriction of liberty.

The Board found that both the initial restriction and the continuing restriction until his discharge from seclusion were necessary, appropriate, and the least restrictive options available to the hospital given the accused's history of assaultive behaviour, increase in symptoms, and refusal to accept medication.

The accused was found unfit to stand trial on charges of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and failing to stop at an accident.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing.

Based on psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused suffers from a major neurocognitive disorder, rendering him permanently unfit to stand trial.

The Board ordered a Conditional Discharge, requiring the accused to reside at a long-term care facility, and declined to impose abstain or submit clauses regarding alcohol and drugs, finding them unnecessary and overly onerous given his cognitive impairment and historical substance use.

The accused, previously found unfit to stand trial on a charge of attempted murder, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual review.

The Board heard evidence from her attending psychiatrist that she continues to struggle with cognitive deficits and emotional regulation, but that her symptoms may be related to complex trauma rather than a permanent intellectual disability.

The Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial, but declined to find her permanently unfit.

The Board ordered that the current detention disposition at the hospital remains necessary and appropriate, with privileges to live in approved accommodation in Ontario.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assault, was subject to a detention disposition at a psychiatric hospital.

The hospital significantly restricted his indirectly supervised community privileges after he exhibited intimidating behaviour toward a clinician and engaged in a pattern of inappropriate sexual and interpersonal conduct.

The Ontario Review Board held a restriction of liberty hearing and found that the increased restrictions were necessary and appropriate to manage his risk while the treatment team worked to address his behaviours.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for first-degree murder, was subject to a mandatory annual review hearing before the Ontario Review Board.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his bipolar disorder with psychotic features and the risk of relapse.

The Board ordered a continuation of his detention disposition at the hospital, with expanded privileges to allow for gradual reintegration into his community.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for attempted murder and assault with a weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had made progress and transitioned to a supervised community group home but breached a no-contact clause by repeatedly contacting his wife.

The Board found that the accused lacked insight into his violence risk and the impact of his offences on his family.

The Board concluded that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety and ordered a continuation of the detention disposition with an amended no-contact clause to allow for family court proceedings.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the conditional discharge of an accused found not criminally responsible for dangerous operation of a vehicle, break and enter, and assault.

The accused, diagnosed with bipolar disorder, had demonstrated significant improvements in medication compliance, insight, and psychiatric stability over the reporting period.

Applying the test from Winko, the Board concluded that the evidence no longer established that the accused posed a significant threat to public safety.

Consequently, the Board ordered an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for breaking and entering.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorder, had remained stable and abstinent in the community for over a year.

The Board found the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety but concluded a conditional discharge was the necessary and appropriate disposition.

The Board rejected a joint submission to include an admission condition, finding it was not the least onerous and least restrictive option given the accused's stability and history of cooperation.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, autism spectrum disorder, and intellectual developmental disorder, had successfully transitioned to a staff-supported community group home during the reporting period.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and the uncontroverted expert evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered that the detention disposition be maintained, as the accused requires continuous supervision and medication prompts, but expanded his geographic privileges to include Southern and Southwestern Ontario.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing to determine whether the accused, who has schizophrenia and a history of complex delusions, was fit to stand trial.

The hospital and the Crown argued he remained unfit due to his belief that the legal system was rigged against him.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision in Bharwani, the Board found that while the accused held delusional beliefs, they did not overwhelm his ability to make decisions regarding his defence or instruct counsel.

The Board concluded the accused was fit to stand trial and directed that he be returned to court.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder in 2021 after killing her infant son during a major psychotic incident.

She appeared before the Ontario Review Board for a mandatory review of her conditional discharge.

The evidence demonstrated that her schizoaffective disorder was optimally treated, she had maintained stability in the community for several years, and she had robust professional and personal supports, including a voluntary Community Treatment Order.

The Board concluded that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to the safety of the public and ordered an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for multiple offences including robbery.

The accused, who has schizophrenia and a substance use disorder, had a history of absconding and relapsing into substance use, which exacerbated his psychotic symptoms.

Relying on the uncontroverted evidence of the treating psychiatric team, the Board concluded that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order to provide necessary supervision during his transition to community living.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for robbery and uttering threats, brought a motion before the Ontario Review Board seeking an independent psychiatric assessment for diagnostic clarification.

Although diagnosed with schizophrenia by multiple psychiatrists, the accused disputed the diagnosis, resulting in a lack of progress toward community reintegration.

The hospital and Crown opposed the motion, arguing there was no diagnostic ambiguity or treatment impasse.

The Board granted the motion, finding that while there was no treatment impasse, an independent assessment could provide therapeutic benefit and help address the accused's stagnation in the forensic system.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault and threatening bodily harm.

The accused has diagnoses of schizophrenia and substance use disorder.

The Board accepted the joint position of the parties and the evidence of the treating psychiatrist that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered a continued detention disposition with privileges, noting the need to assess the accused's ability to live independently and manage his symptoms before considering a conditional discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and weapons offences.

The accused, who has schizophrenia and an intellectual disability, remains detained at a forensic mental health centre.

The Board accepted uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused remains treatment resistant and would pose a moderate to high risk to public safety without forensic supervision.

The Board concluded the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered a continued Detention Disposition with minor modifications to community access privileges.

The accused was charged with second-degree murder, attempted murder, and aggravated assault following a stabbing incident that left his intimate partner dead and her young daughter and his mother seriously injured.

In the first stage of a bifurcated trial, the Crown was required to prove the actus reus and mens rea of the offences.

The court rejected the accused's claims of self-defence and provocation, finding his testimony incredible and unreliable.

Applying count-to-count similar fact evidence, the court found the accused had the specific intent to kill all three victims.

The court concluded the Crown had proven all essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt but refrained from entering convictions pending a determination on whether the accused was not criminally responsible due to mental disorder.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assault and weapons offences in 2019.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and a substance use disorder, had recently been transferred to a new hospital and demonstrated significant progress, including medication adherence and abstinence from substances.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety but accepted a joint submission to expand his privileges, maintaining a Detention Order with increased access to the community.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and assault causing bodily harm.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and pedophilia, was previously subject to a conditional discharge.

Due to recent inappropriate sexual behaviour, eviction from his residence, and lack of community support, the Board found he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a detention disposition as the least onerous and least restrictive option to manage his risk.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for violent offences.

The accused had made significant progress over the past five years, remaining stable, medication-compliant, and substance-free while living in the community.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his history of violence and mental illness.

However, considering his progress, the Board ordered a conditional discharge as the least onerous and restrictive disposition.