Defence appeal of child pornography convictions. Circumstantial case. The son of the appellant, called by the Crown, vaguely testified in direct examination that he himself did use child pornography in the relevant timeframe. In cross-examination, he confirmed that about 80 other people would have had access to the computers too. Trial Crown incorrectly claimed that this was being used by defence as third-party suspect evidence without an application; this claim set off an unusual series of errors by everyone involved. Trial judge did eventually admit this testimony. On appeal, defence argued trial unfairness.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

 Ultimately, while the trial judge made some errors in her rulings, she did correctly admit the evidence – the Court noted this at multiple points, and held that no prejudice was established. Further, there was insufficient evidence that the various irregularities, or certain concessions made by trial defence counsel subsequent to them, impacted the verdict.

K. Molle – Defence Counsel