In a criminal appeal concerning circumstantial proof of possession of child pornography, the Court clarified that alternative inferences consistent with innocence may arise from evidence or absence of evidence, but must be reasonable rather than speculative.
The Court held there is no mandatory formula for circumstantial-evidence instructions, though juries should be cautioned against inferential gap-filling and premature conclusions.
Reading the trial reasons as a whole, the Court found no reversible legal error in the treatment of inferences, burden, or standard of proof.
The guilty verdict was held reasonable on the totality of the evidence.
The acquittal was set aside and Charter ss. 8 and 24(2) issues were remanded to the provincial appellate court.
