Stephen Fredrick Gehl

The appellant, a former Revenue Canada auditor, was convicted of 249 counts of fraudulently obtaining over $1.5 million in GST refunds.

He appealed his conviction, seeking to introduce fresh evidence to support an alibi defence and arguing the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury on the Crown's duty to preserve evidence.

The Crown appealed the 18-month sentence, seeking a four-year term.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer criteria and the lack of a jury instruction was a tactical decision by the defence that would not have altered the verdict.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge's assessment of the appellant's role was entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed her conviction and sentence.

Based on fresh evidence filed by both parties, the Court of Appeal found that the appellant was not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder at the time of the offence.

The court quashed the conviction and substituted a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, ordering the appellant to remain detained pending a Review Board hearing.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence of eight years for assault causing bodily harm, robbery, extortion, forcible confinement, aggravated assault, and theft over.

The charges arose from a vicious beating and robbery where the appellant was identified by eyewitnesses and ATM surveillance footage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's refusal to exclude the appellant's criminal record under Corbett, the admission of evidence regarding a child witness's identification, or the handling of a Crown interruption during closing arguments.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the disparity between the appellant's sentence and his co-accused's was justified by the appellant's role as the instigator and his prior record.

The Crown sought leave to appeal from a summary conviction appeal court order setting aside a sexual assault conviction and directing a new trial.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal judge erred by conducting a microscopic review of the evidence, reassessing credibility, and effectively retrying the case rather than showing proper deference to the trial judge's findings.

Applying the governing appellate principles on unreasonable verdicts and credibility-based findings, the court concluded the trial verdict was reasonably supported by the complainant's evidence and the rejection of the defence evidence.

Leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed, the trial verdict was restored, and the sentence appeal was remitted for determination on its merits.