Self-represented (Amicus Curiae: Erin Dann)

The accused was charged with several offences, including sexual assault and child luring.

During the investigation, police impersonated the 15-year-old complainant using her phone to communicate with the accused and capture his messages without a warrant.

Upon his arrest, police conducted a warrantless search of his cell phone, taking screenshots of all messages across multiple applications.

The court found that the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his messages to the complainant, and that the warrantless undercover operation violated his s. 8 Charter rights.

The court also found the search of his phone incident to arrest was overly broad and violated s. 8.

Applying s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court excluded the evidence obtained from the undercover operation and the search incident to arrest.

Sentencing decision following convictions for attempted procurement of a child for sexual services, child luring, invitation to sexual touching, and possession of child pornography for the purpose of distribution arising from online communications with a 15-year-old complainant.

The court applied the rule against multiple convictions to stay overlapping possession and sexually explicit material counts, and held the applicable one-year mandatory minimum sentences unconstitutional and inapplicable, relying on prior appellate and trial authorities and principles of judicial comity.

In fixing sentence, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children, weighed significant aggravating factors including grooming, graphic communications, actual harm, and the complainant’s age, and gave meaningful mitigation for the offender’s failed attempt to procure, collateral immigration consequences, pandemic custody conditions, and more than four years on stringent bail without internet access.

A global sentence of three and a half years’ imprisonment was imposed with ancillary SOIRA, DNA, no-contact, employment, and tailored internet conditions.

The Crown sought to admit the accused's police statement in a trial for sexual offences involving a minor.

The court found that the police breached the accused's rights under ss. 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter by failing to inform him of the most serious charge (procuring) and by delaying his access to counsel for nearly two hours without justification.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the breaches were serious and significantly impacted the accused's Charter-protected interests.

The statement was excluded under s. 24(2) and found inadmissible under the voluntariness rule.