Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Criminal law - Offences - Sexual offences - Internet luring - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in defining the mens rea required under s. 172.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The Appellant, Legare, stands charged of the following two offences:

COUNT 1: That he on or about the 28th day of April, 2003, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, did, for a sexual purpose, unlawfully invite, counsel, or incite [the complainant], a person under the age of fourteen years to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of Craig Legare, contrary to s. 152 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

COUNT 2: That he, on or about the 28th day of April, 2003, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, did by means of a computer system, communicate with a person who was, or whom the accused believed to be, under the age of fourteen years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under s. 151 or 152 with respect to that person contrary to s. 172.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

In April of 2003, Legare engaged in two private, electronic “chat” conversations with the complainant, who was 12 years old at the time, and living in Ontario. Legare was 32 years old at the time, although he represented to the complainant that he was 17. The conversations were explicitly sexual in nature. The complainant provided her telephone number, and a short time after the chat conversations, Legare made two telephone calls to her. Legare and the complainant never met and no sexual activity ever took place. An agreed statement of facts indicated that at no time did Legare or the complainant discuss a meeting, nor did Legare intend to meet the complainant. The trial judge found Legare not guilty on both counts. While he indicated that most of the public would find Legare’s actions in this case to be abhorrent, the specific facts before him did not constitute a crime. The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown’s appeal in part. The appeal against the acquittal of the charge pursuant to s. 152 was dismissed. The appeal against the acquittal of the charge pursuant to s. 172.1(1)(c) was allowed. The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.