On appeal the court outlined the relevant facts as follows:
The 92 infractions occurred in three different communities and spanned over 21 years. The facts surrounding all of these offences are strange and disconcerting because of the intrusive and sexualized nature of the accused’s behaviour. The accused would identify a home inhabited by a woman, wait until the residents were at church and then enter the home to steal the woman’s lingerie. In some cases, he masturbated with the undergarments while still in the home. Moreover, the psychological report done on the accused postulated that his acts arose from a desire for power over the women whose undergarments he stole [para 3].