The Supreme Court of Canada will hear an appeal next Wednesday from a Saskatchewan man who claims his charter rights were violated when his computer was checked for child pornography because a technician who had visited his home expressed concerns.

The case centres around Urbain Morelli, who was subsequently convicted on child pornography charges. He argued that a justice of the peace had no right to issue a search warrant for his computer based on the evidence, arguing it was an unreasonable search and seizure.

The computer technician was in Morelli's home in September 2002 to install a high-speed internet connection for his computer. He noticed that a webcam on a tripod was plugged into a VCR and pointed toward the man’s three-year-old daughter, who was playing on the floor with some toys.

He also noticed there were two icons on the computer's desktop, one titled "Lolita Porn" and the other "Lolita XXX."

When the technician returned the next day to do further work, he discovered the children's toys were put away, the webcam was turned toward the computer chair, the computer hard drive had been formatted and the icons were removed from the desktop.

The technician waited until November to report his concerns to the RCMP. A search warrant was sworn out on January 2003.

At trial, lawyers for the man argued the case should be thrown out because there had not been enough evidence to allow for a search warrant.

For example, the presence of the "Lolita Porn" and "Lolita XXX" icons on their client's computer was not proof that child pornography images were stored in his computer, they argued.

Also, the removal of the icon the next day did not provide enough evidence to obtain a search warrant, the lawyers affirmed.

The lawyers also said that after four months, there were no reasonable grounds to conclude that their client still had a computer at his residence.

The trial judge ruled the evidence for a warrant was sufficient and Morelli was convicted of possession of child pornography. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal upheld that verdict by a vote of 2-1. Because there was a dissent at the appeal level on a matter of criminal law, Morelli has an automatic right to take his case to the Supreme Court.