Stephen Gehl

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 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 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 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.