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 - Internet luring - Elements of offence - Defences - Due diligence.

The Appellant was acquitted of “Internet luring” contrary to ss. 172.1(1)(c) and 172.1(2) of the Criminal Code. He had been communicating with an undercover police officer who represented that he was a thirteen-year-old boy. The communication took place in an “adult” Internet chat room to which only individuals who declared themselves in their profiles to be 18 years of age or older were admitted. The undercover officer had entered “age 18” in his profile, but all his communications represented that a thirteen-year-old boy was involved. At trial, the Appellant asserted that he did not believe that he was actually communicating with a thirteen year old. No steps were taken by him to verify the age of the person with whom he was communicating. The issue on appeal turned on the interpretation of and interplay between ss. 172.1(3) and (4) of the Criminal Code. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and entered a conviction. It concluded that the trial judge erred in evaluating the Appellant’s subjective belief, and in requiring the Crown to show that the Appellant’s explanations were lies. The Court of Appeal explained that under s. 172.1(3), an accused is presumed to believe the age declared by the person with whom he is communicating, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and that an assertion of honest but mistaken belief, given the legislative framework, is not sufficient to rebut that presumption. The Court of Appeal found that indicia of adulthood such as a false profile, a person’s typing speed, and the fact that people lie about their age online supported neither the reasonableness of the Appellant’s belief nor satisfied the requirement of s. 172.1(4) that for such a defence to apply, an accused must have taken reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the person with whom he was communicating.