The applicant, charged with child pornography offences, sought to exclude evidence seized from his residence, alleging violations of his Charter rights under sections 8 (unreasonable search) and 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found no s. 8 violation regarding the police's use of automated systems (CPS/Shareaza LE) to identify and download files from his P2P shared folders, nor for arresting him without a Feeney warrant while lawfully executing a search warrant.

However, the court found a s. 10(b) violation because the officer-in-charge asked the applicant questions designed to elicit incriminating evidence before he had a reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel.

Despite this breach, applying the Grant factors, the court determined that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, given the seriousness of the alleged offences and the lack of a causal connection between the breach and the discovery of the evidence.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused was charged with accessing, possessing, and distributing child pornography under the Criminal Code.

The trial focused on the mens rea for these offences, specifically whether the accused knowingly downloaded, possessed, or accessed the illegal files.

The court acquitted the accused on the distribution charge, finding insufficient evidence of knowledge or intent regarding file sharing via uTorrent.

However, the court found the accused guilty of possession and accessing child pornography, rejecting his testimony that his possession was unwitting and that he did not view the files.

The conviction was based on forensic evidence (e.g., a "CP" subfolder, RAM screenshots, link files) and the accused's police statement, which was interpreted as an admission of viewing child pornography to "understand the pattern" for protective reasons.

The application of the Kienapple principle for multiple convictions was deferred to sentencing.