Luring (Child Luring)
Child luring is the offence under section 172.1 of the Criminal Code of communicating, by means of telecommunication, with a person who is — or whom the accused believes is — under a specified age, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a designated sexual offence. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years on indictment (10 years on summary) and is a designated SOIRA offence. It has become one of the most frequently prosecuted online sexual offences in Canada.
Mass Tsang's sexual assault lawyers handle luring files across the GTA with extreme attention to digital evidence and Charter issues. For more, see our blog post on internet luring charges.
Elements
The Crown must prove: (1) the accused communicated with the complainant by means of telecommunication (text, chat, email, social media, gaming platforms); (2) the complainant was — or the accused believed they were — under the specified age (18, 16, or 14 depending on the underlying offence to be facilitated); (3) the purpose of the communication was to facilitate a designated sexual offence; and (4) the accused intended that purpose. The communication itself completes the actus reus — no in-person meeting is required, and the offence is complete whether or not the underlying offence is ever attempted.
Police sting operations
Many luring prosecutions arise from police sting operations in which officers pose as minors on chat platforms, social media, or gaming services. Where the accused believes the person they are communicating with is under the relevant age, the offence is established even though no actual minor exists. The Supreme Court has confirmed that sting operations of this type do not raise entrapment concerns provided police limit themselves to providing opportunities to commit the offence, not inducing it.
Statutory presumption — section 172.1(3)
Section 172.1(3) creates a statutory presumption that the accused believed the complainant was under the relevant age where there is evidence that the complainant was represented to be that age. The presumption shifts the evidentiary burden — the accused must point to some evidence raising a doubt about belief. Section 172.1(4) makes mistake-of-age a defence only where the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain age.
Defences
Defences include: lack of intent to facilitate a sexual offence (innocent communications mistakenly interpreted); identification (where the communication came from a shared device or account); reasonable steps to ascertain age (where the accused acted in good faith on representations of age); and Charter issues with the investigation (particularly section 8 challenges to digital evidence extraction and account preservation orders).
Sentencing and collateral consequences
Sentencing focuses heavily on denunciation and deterrence. Mandatory minimum sentences have applied in luring cases, though parts of the regime have faced constitutional challenge. Conviction triggers mandatory SOIRA, section 161 orders, and severe immigration consequences for non-citizens.
Related glossary terms
