Paul Affleck

The accused was tried on two counts of possessing child pornography and one count of accessing child pornography.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly possessed child pornography stored on his laptop, phone, and USB drives, rejecting alternative theories that roommates may have downloaded or viewed the material.

The court also held that a three-foot child-like sex doll was an 'other visual representation' meeting the definition of child pornography under s. 163.1(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

The accessing count failed because the Crown conceded there was no evidence that child pornography had been accessed in Ontario during the charged period.

The accused was arrested for drug-impaired driving after being found asleep at the wheel of a motor vehicle in the middle of a road.

Police obtained blood samples pursuant to a newly enacted provision of the Criminal Code that had come into force only four days prior.

The trial judge found multiple Charter breaches: failure to inform the accused of a drug possession charge before consulting counsel (not a breach but a factor in cumulative analysis); failure to provide a further opportunity to consult counsel after making a blood demand at the police station; failure to provide a further opportunity to consult counsel when the hospital refused to take blood samples without the accused's consent; and failure to obtain valid consent to the seizure of blood samples.

The blood samples and toxicology evidence were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Without the excluded evidence, the Crown could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by a drug.

The accused was acquitted.