The trial judge concluded Microsoft made a mistake. The
NCMEC Report had a clear contradiction in it. It was the basis
for the warrant, and it showed the Microsoft incident reports
were generated hours before the appellant was associated with
the identified IP address.
The SCAJ’s conclusion
 The SCAJ accepted [at para. 120] that the “apparent
timing inconsistency was an issue to be addressed”. However,
in his view, while the discrepancy may have lessened the connection to the appellant’s home and computer equipment, the
discrepancy did not eliminate it. The trial judge had no basis
for rejecting Cst. MacDonald’s explanation of the discrepancy,
and engaged in a parsing of the facts. The SCAJ concluded
[at para. 127] “even with this 7 hour 0 minute time discrepancy,
the issuing [justice] continued to have sufficient credible and
reliable evidence that he could have issued the search
 I agree.
The trial judge’s errors
 Before turning to whether the trial judge had any basis for
rejecting Cst. MacDonald’s explanation of the discrepancy, I first
explain why the time discrepancy did not eliminate the sufficiency
of the grounds. Even if the time discrepancy remained
unexplained, the SCAJ noted, at para. 121, the following evidence
(a) the file was uploaded by [information omitted]@ hotmail.com;
(b) the file contained images which were apparent child
(c) the IP addresses remained 220.127.116.11 and 18.104.22.168;
(d) the IP addresses continued to be connected to the N. address
and Mr. Cusick’s home; and
(e) the IP address associated with the uploading of the apparent
child pornography, was within a short time, 7 hours
0 minutes, of the time in the [NCMEC Report].
 I expand on the SCAJ’s observation in subparagraph (e).
Cst. MacDonald testified about the nature of dynamic IP addresses.
IP addresses can and do change, but that does not mean they will
change every time a computer user connects to the Internet.
Cst. MacDonald said: