The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of child pornography and sexual exploitation.
The Crown conceded the sexual exploitation conviction was unreasonable as the victim was not a 'young person' under the Criminal Code.
For the child pornography charges, which involved written materials, the trial judge had convicted the appellant before the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Sharpe.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by failing to properly consider the defence of artistic merit and by applying an overly broad definition of child pornography.
The appeal was allowed, an acquittal was entered for the sexual exploitation charge, and a new trial was ordered for the child pornography charges.
