2 total
The accused was convicted of possessing and accessing child pornography and voyeurism based on forensic cellphone evidence.
The accused was charged with six counts: possession of child pornography (s. 163.1(4)), accessing child pornography (s. 163.1(4.1)), breach of undertaking conditions, and voyeurism (s. 162(1)(c)).
The Crown proved that the accused possessed and accessed child pornography on two seized cellphones through forensic analysis demonstrating the accused's exclusive use of the devices, intentional downloading and accessing of images from a specific website, and knowledge of the material's nature.
The accused was also found guilty of surreptitiously recording a child at a shopping mall food court for a sexual purpose, breaching her reasonable expectation of privacy.
The court rejected the defence arguments regarding data integrity, accidental downloading, and the definition of child pornography.
The court admitted electronic social media and email records, finding the Crown satisfied the statutory authentication and best evidence requirements.
The court issued a decision on the admissibility of electronic documents during a criminal trial.
The Crown sought to admit three distinct packages of electronic documents: Google Hangout conversations, Gmail exchanges, and additional Google Hangout chats.
The defence did not pursue arguments against admissibility.
The court admitted all three packages of documents as exhibits after conducting a blended admissibility voir dire.
The decision addresses the requirements for authenticating electronic documents under the Canada Evidence Act and establishes the evidentiary standards for proving authenticity and compliance with the best evidence rule for electronic documents.
