The accused was charged with voyeurism, mischief, and failing to comply with a recognizance arising from incidents between November 2009 and February 2010.
The Crown proved that the accused installed a hidden camera in the complainant's bedroom closet and remotely accessed live video feeds while she was changing.
The accused was found guilty of voyeurism and mischief based on overwhelming evidence including video recordings, police testimony, and expert computer analysis.
The charge of failing to comply with a recognizance was dismissed due to insufficient Crown evidence regarding the court order and the accused's knowledge of its terms.
