D. Eastwood

The accused was convicted of two indictable offences of possessing child pornography contrary to section 163.1(4)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The first offence involved 49 accessible child pornographic images on a computer hard drive, discovered when the computer was brought in for repairs.

The second offence involved 30 hard copy photographs of preteen or young teenage females.

The court imposed a sentence of 8 months imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently, along with a 2-year probation order, a 5-year prohibition order under section 161, and a lifetime SOIRA order.

The court rejected the Crown's argument for an inflationary floor principle and the defence's argument for the minimum sentence, finding that 8 months was a fit sentence given the gravity of the offences and the offender's degree of responsibility.

The accused was charged with two counts of possession of child pornography.

The Crown's case depended on evidence obtained through a warrantless search and seizure of the accused's computer at a repair shop, followed by searches pursuant to warrants.

The defence challenged the admissibility of all evidence on Charter grounds, arguing violations of section 8 (unreasonable search and seizure).

The court found multiple Charter breaches: the warrantless search at the repair shop lacked reasonable and probable grounds and lawful authority; the warrantless seizure was tainted by the illegal search; and the police failed to file a required Report to a Justice.

However, the court admitted the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that while the breaches were serious, their practical impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests was modest, and exclusion would not serve the long-term repute of the administration of justice.

The accused was convicted on both counts.