Toomas Ounapuu

The offender was found guilty by a jury of sexually assaulting a young woman after breaking into her university residence.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record of over 70 convictions, primarily for property offences including numerous break and enters.

The court found the offence to be a home invasion sexual assault, an aggravating factor, while noting the offender's recent efforts at rehabilitation as mitigating.

The court determined the appropriate global sentence range was 9 to 10 years, but credited the offender with 3 years already served for the related break and enter conviction, resulting in a sentence of 6 years imprisonment.

This criminal trial involved three accused charged with various firearm-related offences following a shooting incident.

The Crown's case relied heavily on video surveillance, expert evidence on "characteristics of an armed person" and gunshot residue (GSR) analysis.

The court acquitted two accused, Sentoree Kamara and Shaquille Woodcock, finding that the circumstantial evidence did not establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly noting the limitations of the "characteristics of an armed person" evidence and potential GSR contamination.

However, the court found Shierine Shkais guilty of possession of a firearm, concluding that her questions about "minimums" while detained, combined with the firearm being found in her purse, indicated the requisite knowledge.

Two youth applicants charged with sexual assault sought to adduce other sexual activity (OSA) evidence of the complainant pursuant to section 276(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought summary dismissal of the application for failure to comply with the statutory requirements of section 276(2)(b), which mandates that OSA evidence must be relevant to an issue at trial and that detailed particulars must be provided.

The court found the application incomplete and lacking in specificity regarding both the particulars of the alleged prior consensual sexual activity and the articulation of its relevance to the issues at trial.

The application was dismissed.

Two young persons were charged with robbery and assault arising from an incident in a mall parking lot.

The defendant J.G.B. admitted to punching the complainant multiple times but claimed self-defence.

The court found that while there was an air of reality to the self-defence claim, the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self-defence.

The defendant had sought out the complainant with associates to confront him over an alleged prior wrong, initiated the physical confrontation, and used disproportionate force.

The defendant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm.

The robbery charges were dismissed as the Crown could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt which defendant took the phone or that theft was the purpose of the attack.

At a preliminary hearing into the death of a two-year-old child at a day care, the Crown sought to admit two statements from a witness without calling her to testify in person, citing her medical inability to attend court.

The defence opposed admission and sought an order requiring the witness to attend for cross-examination.

The court admitted both statements under section 540(7) of the Criminal Code, finding them credible and trustworthy, but declined to order the witness's attendance under section 540(9), balancing the accused's interest in cross-examination against the witness's medical circumstances and the ancillary nature of the evidence to the charges.

The appellant appealed his assault conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons and ignored evidence of self-defence and the complainant's intoxication.

The complainant, the sole witness at trial, testified that she had delivered the first blows during the altercation.

The Superior Court of Justice found the trial judge's brief reasons inadequate, noting they failed to explain why the Crown had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and appeared to reverse the burden of proof regarding consent and self-defence.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

Five individuals were jointly charged with aggravated assault arising from an attack on the victim in an apartment building hallway.

The victim was struck with a beer bottle and stabbed multiple times.

The Crown's case depended entirely on eyewitness identification by the victim.

During trial, the Crown withdrew charges against one accused.

The court found that the victim credibly identified two of the remaining accused as the direct perpetrators of the assault.

However, the court found insufficient evidence to establish that the other two accused were parties to the assault, as the Crown's theory relied on speculation regarding their knowledge and intent.

The court also harboured reasonable doubt regarding one of the weapon possession charges.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and possession of a firearm with an altered serial number.

The firearm was discovered in an apartment where children were present during a domestic disturbance while the offender was intoxicated.

The court determined that the appropriate sentence absent the mandatory minimum was less than two years and followed the reasoning in Smickle that the three‑year mandatory minimum under s. 95(2)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional.

A conditional sentence was unavailable because the offence constituted a serious personal injury offence under the statutory definition.

Balancing denunciation, deterrence, and strong evidence of rehabilitation and parental responsibilities, the court imposed a short custodial sentence to be served intermittently followed by probation.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 15, 2010.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because a subsequent order dated February 14, 2011, had superseded the order under appeal.