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.
