Stephen Fredrick Gehl

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory hearing to review the accused's fitness to stand trial and her Disposition regarding a charge of attempted murder.

The attending psychiatrist testified that the accused remains unfit to stand trial due to cognitive impairments and symptoms, but suggested she may have been misdiagnosed with an intellectual disability and could potentially regain fitness with trauma-informed treatment.

The Board found the accused remains unfit to stand trial and ordered the continuation of her Detention Order, while expanding her geographic area for community living to the province of Ontario to facilitate future supported housing placements.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorder, had been abstinent for eight years and sought the removal of the abstain clause from his disposition.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his underdeveloped insight and history of substance abuse linked to his offending behaviour.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with added indirectly supervised passes and an expanded geographical area for community living, but declined to remove the abstain clause, finding it necessary to support his reintegration and protect the public.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for dangerous operation, break and enter, and assault.

The accused, diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, had recently stabilized following medication optimization, including a long-acting injectable antipsychotic.

The Board accepted the attending psychiatrist's evidence that while the accused's risk had lowered, he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his history of decompensation, non-compliance, and the recency of his improvements.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Conditional Discharge with modifications, removing the residence and abstain conditions and reducing reporting requirements, but retained the no-contact conditions regarding the victims.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for attempted murder and assault with a weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been compliant with medication in the hospital but lacked full insight into his illness and had a history of nonadherence.

The Board found that the accused continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order at the hospital, with minor modifications to allow for potential future community living options, as it was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for first-degree murder in the death of his infant child.

The accused suffers from bipolar disorder with psychotic features.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his major mental illness, lack of community testing, and the severe violence of the index offence.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order with additional privileges to allow for gradual, supervised reintegration into his home community.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for first-degree murder and arson.

The accused suffers from an unspecified bipolar disorder and a substance use disorder.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to diagnostic uncertainty, limited insight, and the risk of relapse into substance use, which historically exacerbated his psychotic symptoms.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order, maintained the absolute prohibition on alcohol and drugs, expanded travel privileges, and added a condition requiring the accused to report any romantic involvements.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review of the accused's disposition under s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, who was previously found NCR for assault and threatening bodily harm, had a positive year living in a supervised group home.

The treatment team recommended continuing the detention order with expanded privileges, including indirectly supervised 72-hour passes, to facilitate community integration.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties, finding that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety and that the continued detention order is the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

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 sought an amendment to his disposition to allow him to reside in Lambton County.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to treatment-refractory schizophrenia, substance use disorder, and a history of absconding.

The Board dismissed the request to add Lambton County to the approved accommodations, finding it lacked appropriate supervised group homes and would increase the risk to public safety.

The existing Detention Order was continued.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, had a successful year in the community with no hospital admissions or cannabis use, though she consumed alcohol.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety but granted a conditional discharge.

Accepting the attending psychiatrist's evidence, the Board declined to impose an alcohol abstain clause or driving restriction, finding no connection between her alcohol use and her risk to the public.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review and a restriction of liberty review for an accused found not criminally responsible for robbery and uttering threats.

The accused had absconded from the hospital, used substances, and missed his medication injection, resulting in a significant restriction of his liberty upon his return.

The Board found the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate.

The Board also concluded that the accused, who suffers from schizophrenia and a substance use disorder, continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention disposition with an increase in 7-day passes to facilitate community reintegration.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for various violent offences.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and a substance use disorder, had shown progress with a new medication regimen but continued to experience hallucinations and lacked full insight into his illness.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board concluded the accused remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order with joint-submission amendments, removing the requirement for supervised accommodation and granting accompanied community passes.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and pedophilia, had made positive progress in a supervised group home and remained abstinent from substances.

However, due to his partial insight and need for external supervision to maintain medication compliance, the Board found he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of his conditional discharge but removed the substance abstention clause to test his ability to remain abstinent without extrinsic legal support.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for violent offences, had been living in the community for nine months without incident.

The hospital, the accused, and initially the Attorney General jointly recommended a Conditional Discharge.

However, the Board rejected this recommendation, finding that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety due to his high psychopathy scores, lack of insight, and failure to engage in necessary therapy.

The Board concluded that the Mental Health Act would be insufficient to manage his risk if his mental state decompensated.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order with an additional privilege for indirectly supervised travel passes.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for attempted murder and was subject to a conditional discharge.

At the annual review hearing, the Ontario Review Board considered whether the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

Based on evidence from the attending psychiatrist that the accused's mental illness was well-managed, he was compliant with treatment, and he had successfully transitioned to independent living with community supports, the Board concluded the accused no longer posed a significant threat.

The Board ordered an absolute discharge.

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 accused, charged with one count of sexual assault involving multiple incidents over a lengthy period, brought an application for particulars under s. 587(1) of the Criminal Code.

He sought specific dates, times, and places of the alleged assaults.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the replacement indictment, which specified the time period, place, victim, and offence, combined with substantial Crown disclosure, provided sufficient information for the accused to make full answer and defence.

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.

The accused faced nine charges including accessing, making, and possessing child pornography, voyeurism, distributing intimate images without consent, extortion, criminal harassment, and breach of recognizance.

The charges arose from a police investigation into a user named 'Criza' on a Russian image-sharing website, which led to the seizure of multiple electronic devices from the accused's residence.

The court found the circumstantial evidence overwhelming that the accused was the user 'Criza', that he created the 'River Videos' depicting child pornography, and that he distributed intimate images of former partners without consent.

The accused was found guilty on eight of the nine counts, being acquitted only of one count of voyeurism where the court had a reasonable doubt regarding consent.

The appellant appealed a decision by an animal welfare inspector to remove her horse under section 31 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The horse was removed after the appellant failed to comply with a section 30 compliance order requiring her to have the horse examined by a veterinarian.

The Board found that the horse was in distress at the time of removal, suffering from chronic lymphangitis, oral ulcers, and suspected gastric ulcers.

The Board concluded that the appellant was ultimately responsible for the horse's care and had failed to provide necessary veterinary treatment.

The Board declined to order the return of the horse to the appellant.