The appellant was convicted of child luring following an online sting operation.
He appealed, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and seeking to raise the issue of entrapment for the first time on appeal.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the ineffective assistance claim, finding no reasonable probability of a different trial outcome.
However, the court allowed the entrapment issue to be pursued at a new trial, citing the Supreme Court's recent decision in R. v. Ramelson, which provided clearer guidelines for internet sting operations.
The court found that the record did not definitively show compliance with these new guidelines and that the Crown would not suffer procedural prejudice by allowing the issue to be heard.
The conviction was quashed, and a new trial was ordered solely on the issue of entrapment.
