Criminal prosecution arising from a controlled delivery of a child-sized sex doll, the seizure of a second doll from the accused's bedroom, AI-generated cache images on a phone, and videos stored on an external hard drive.
Applying the objective framework in s. 163.1 of the Criminal Code and Sharpe, the court held that both dolls and multiple AI images constituted child pornography, and that the accused knew or was wilfully blind to the features that made the dolls and images child pornography.
The court rejected exculpatory statements under the W. (D.) framework and found intentional access to the AI images.
The Crown failed to prove importation of the second doll and failed to prove that the hard-drive videos objectively had the dominant sexual characteristic or sexual purpose required by the Code.
Guilty findings were entered on importing and possessing the controlled-delivery doll, possessing the second doll, and accessing child pornography; acquittals were entered on importing the second doll and possessing the hard-drive videos.
