information reported to NCMEC. NCMEC forwards reports of
child sexual exploitation to law enforcement for purposes of
investigation and disposition.”
 The second statement appears as the footer of every page
of the report. The footer should be read keeping in mind the
content and transmittal of a CyberTipline Report. NCMEC
comes into actual possession of child pornography when it
receives copies from the electronic service provider. After
it comes into actual possession of child pornography, NCMEC
then engages in the distribution of child pornography when it
sends out its reports. Cst. MacDonald provided his expert
opinion that NCMEC includes the second statement to attempt
to preclude the use of its CyberTipline Reports as evidence of
criminal wrongdoing by itself.
 A reading of the footer, keeping in mind that the
CyberTipline Report is evidence that NCMEC has possessed
and transmitted apparent child pornography, supports Cst.
MacDonald’s expert opinion. The first sentence of the footer says
the CyberTipline Report is provided only for informational
purposes and reminds the recipient of NCMEC’s statutory
authorization and mission. The second sentence states that the
CyberTipline Report should not be used to establish criminal
liability. The only criminal liability conceivable is for the possession
and distribution of child pornography. Understanding the second
sentence to mean the CyberTipline Report should not be used as
evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the user who uploaded the
child pornography, as the appellant urges, is inconsistent with
the last sentence and the header of the Cyber Tipline Report. The
last sentence makes clear the CyberTipline Report is intended to
be used in “criminal investigation” and “any resulting criminal
prosecution”. In fact, in the last sentence, NCMEC uses the voice
of a partner in the criminal process.
 The only sensible interpretation of the whole footer is that
NCMEC plays a role in the criminal process pursuant to congressional authorization, and NCMEC should not itself be seen to
breach the criminal law though it possesses and transmits child
pornography. The cautious inclusion of the statement as a footer
of every page of the Cyber Tipline Report supports this reading.
 The Crown submits that the trial judge had no basis to
reject Cst. MacDonald’s expert opinion of what the statement
meant, as there was no contrary evidence. Certainly, Cst.
MacDonald’s expert opinion was deserving of appropriate weight.
This was a technical area and the reading of the NCMEC Report
involved some technical expertise. It is sufficient to observe that
Cst. MacDonald’s testimony on the point “might reasonably be