Stephen Fredrick Gehl

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 appellant, who was found Not Criminally Responsible for breach of recognizance and criminal harassment, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his conditional discharge.

He argued the finding that he posed a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable and supported by evidence, including the appellant's lack of insight, refusal to take medication, and intended cannabis use, which experts testified would increase his risk of physical aggression.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

He had previously been granted a conditional discharge but subsequently missed appointments, was hospitalized multiple times, used drugs, and exhibited concerning behaviour.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's conclusion that the appellant posed a significant risk to public safety was reasonable and owed deference.

The appeal was dismissed.

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.

The appellant challenged convictions for historical sexual offences against his children, arguing inadequate reasons, misapprehension of evidence, unreasonable verdicts, and an unfit sentence.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was alive to inconsistencies in the complainants’ evidence, gave reasoned credibility findings, and properly applied the criminal burden of proof in rejecting the defence evidence.

Deference was owed to the trial judge’s credibility assessments, and none of the alleged conflicts or inconsistencies undermined the verdicts.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the eight-year global sentence was within range and upheld.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

Following a request for an early Board hearing, counsel advised that the appeal would not be pursued.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The appellant appealed a first degree murder conviction, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable because the Crown's case was entirely circumstantial and that police vetting of prospective jurors constituted an abuse of process.

The court applied the unreasonable verdict standard and held that the cumulative effect of the evidence of motive, opportunity, access, and post-offence conduct was capable of supporting findings of unlawful killing, murder, and planning and deliberation.

The court also held that police checks for criminal records and outstanding charges, without Crown involvement and without any resulting unfairness in jury selection, did not amount to a per se abuse of process.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for trafficking and possession of the proceeds of crime, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and that the verdicts were unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal found that the circumstantial evidence, which included the appellant driving the car to the drug deal, questioning the undercover officer's identity, and being found in possession of the buy money shortly after the transaction, was sufficient to ground the convictions.

The court concluded there was no misapprehension of evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed her sentence for two bank robberies, seeking to convert the custodial portion into a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge reasonably balanced the appellant's personal circumstances with the seriousness of the offences, which involved planning and threats of violence.

The sentence imposed was deemed fit.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault with a weapon, unlawful confinement, and robbery, as well as his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the verdict was reasonable and the trial judge's intervention during cross-examination was adequately addressed by jury instructions.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed because the trial judge erred by treating the conduct of the defence as an aggravating factor.

The total sentence was reduced from 11 years to 10 years, resulting in 8 years net of pre-trial custody credit.

The appellant, convicted of a designated sexual offence, challenged the constitutionality of Christopher's Law, which mandates that sex offenders register with police.

He argued the law was ultra vires the province, rendered inoperative by federal paramountcy, and violated his rights under sections 7, 11, and 12 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the legislation was a valid exercise of provincial power aimed at community safety, did not conflict with federal law, and did not constitute punishment.

The court also held that the law did not violate section 7, as its requirements were not overbroad or grossly disproportionate to the objective of protecting the public.

The appellant appealed convictions for making child pornography and possession of child pornography arising from sexual activity with two complainants and images later found on a computer in his bedroom.

The court rejected the argument that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate, holding that the basis for conviction was reasonably intelligible.

The court held that it was open to the trial judge to accept one complainant's detailed evidence that photographs were taken and to reject the appellant's denial.

The court also held that the inference of possession of child pornography on the bedroom computer was available on the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

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.