The appellant was convicted of 33 counts of voyeurism based on video recordings found on a USB device seized from a safe in his condominium.
He appealed, challenging the validity of the warrant authorizing the search of the safes.
The application judge had found that the information to obtain disclosed sufficient credible and reliable evidence to support the issuing justice's conclusion that a digital storage device would be found in the safes and would afford evidence of the offences under investigation.
The Court of Appeal held that the application judge made no extricable legal error, as his findings were rooted in the evidence and reflected permissible common-sense reasoning rather than speculation or impermissible propensity reasoning.
The appeal was dismissed.
