Stephen Fredrick Gehl

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.

The defendants challenged the sufficiency of a search warrant that led to their arrest on narcotics and weapons offences.

The court upheld the warrant, finding reasonable grounds existed for the search at 110-90 Carden Street in Guelph.

The analysis considered nine confidential informants with varying degrees of reliability, prior criminal records of the defendants, and extensive surveillance evidence corroborating drug trafficking activity at the location.

The application to quash the warrant was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that the Board's finding that he remained a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable, and that it erred in refusing to transfer him to a less secure hospital.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's conclusions were reasonable and supported by the evidence of the treating psychiatrist and the appellant's history of violence.

The refusal to transfer was also reasonable given the hospital risk assessment indicating the appellant required better symptom control before moving to a less secure environment.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for breach of probation, appealed a Review Board decision continuing his conditional discharge and denying an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued there was no evidence he continued to pose a significant risk to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable and supported by psychiatric evidence that the appellant lacked insight, was likely to discontinue medication, and would experience worsening persecutory delusions leading to a risk of criminal behaviour.

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 finding that she was not criminally responsible (NCR) for several offences, arguing procedural unfairness and ineffective assistance of counsel.

At trial, her counsel waived arraignment, no plea was taken, and the appellant was never asked if she agreed with the facts read into the record.

The appellant believed she was pleading guilty to receive probation, not realizing an NCR finding could lead to indefinite detention.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the proceeding was so marred by errors—including the trial judge's failure to find that the mental disorder rendered the appellant incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of her acts—that it amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The NCR finding was set aside and a new trial was ordered.

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.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct, specifically statements made 20 to 30 years prior expressing urges to harm homosexual men, to prove motive in a first-degree murder trial.

The court applied the Handy test for similar fact evidence and ruled the historical statements inadmissible, finding that their probative value was diminished by the passage of time and lack of action, while the risk of moral and reasoning prejudice was significant.

However, more recent statements made by the accused in 2014 were ruled admissible as they were proximate in time and relevant to intent.

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 second degree murder for a homicide that occurred over 23 years ago.

The court accepted a joint submission from counsel, sentencing the accused to life imprisonment with a 12-year period of parole ineligibility.

The court emphasized the principles of denunciation and rehabilitation, noting the accused's acceptance of responsibility.

A DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition were also imposed.

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 appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board transferring him to Waypoint, arguing it was not the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence supported the Board's disposition as Waypoint would be better able to transition the appellant out of seclusion and provide necessary structure.