The accused was tried on charges of possession of child pornography and making child pornography available, based entirely on circumstantial digital evidence seized from a laptop and an iPhone found in a residence he occupied.
The court accepted expert forensic evidence linking the devices to each other and to the accused through user-account information, backup files, and online handles, and held that the electronic extraction tools did not undermine reliability.
The court also admitted chat printouts and extracted files for their truth under the Canada Evidence Act and the principled hearsay exception.
Applying the law of possession in digital contexts and the circumstantial-evidence standard, the court found that guilt was the only rational inference and entered convictions on both counts.
