Sexual Offences

No. Other than giving your name and date of birth, stay silent until you have legal advice. Even innocent mistakes can later be used to challenge your credibility.

Save voicemails, text messages, emails, call logs, and social media messages with the complainant. Do not delete anything; early preservation can be vital to your defence.

No. Contact is typically prohibited by bail conditions and may damage your case. Speak to your lawyer immediately about any communication concerns.

Consent is the complainant's voluntary agreement to the sexual activity. It must be present at the time the activity takes place. Silence or passivity is not consent. Incapacity — being unconscious, or so intoxicated that the person is incapable of consenting — eliminates consent.

No. In R v J.A., 2011 SCC 28, the Supreme Court of Canada held that consent requires a conscious, operating mind throughout the activity. Agreement given in advance does not extend to sexual activity while the person is unconscious.

Sometimes, but only through a court application to the trial judge under the Criminal Code records provisions, which Parliament rebuilt in July 2026 (ss. 278.1–278.38). The judge decides first whether to look at the record, then whether any of it is produced to the defence. The tests are strict, and the application cannot be brought at a preliminary inquiry.

Usually not. Since 2019 a preliminary inquiry is available only for offences punishable by 14 years or more (Criminal Code s. 535). Sexual assault under s. 271 carries 10 years, or 14 years where the complainant is under 16, so a preliminary inquiry is available only in that case. Sexual assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm, and aggravated sexual assault, still qualify.

Timelines vary, but expect months to more than a year, including disclosure, pre-trial motions, and trial. A specialist lawyer can help move the case efficiently while protecting your rights.

Yes. Sexual offence law is technically complex. A specialist understands consent law, evidentiary restrictions, Charter applications, and the strategic use of expert evidence.

Usually not personally. In a sexual offence case, if the prosecutor or the complainant applies, the judge must order that you not cross-examine the complainant yourself unless the proper administration of justice requires it, and a lawyer is appointed to conduct that cross-examination (Criminal Code s. 486.3(2)).

Outcomes include withdrawal or stay of charges, acquittal after trial, or resolution on agreed terms depending on the facts. Your lawyer will advise on the best strategy for your case.

On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada held, six to three, that ss. 278.92 to 278.94 of the Criminal Code are constitutional in their entirety, both for s. 276 applications and for private record applications (R v J.J., 2022 SCC 28, para. 192). It also set out how to decide whether evidence is a “record” and when screening is required.

Justices Brown, Rowe and Côté each dissented in part. All three would have struck down ss. 278.92 to 278.94 as they apply to private records, while keeping the s. 276 regime.

They can be. The medium does not decide it; the sensitivity of the information does. A message that reveals intimate and highly personal information about the complainant can be a record, while mundane information such as everyday occurrences usually is not (R v J.J., paras. 49, 54 and 56).

It was the application an accused had to bring before using a private record relating to the complainant in a sexual offence trial. Section 278.92 was repealed on July 18, 2026, but it still applies to charges laid before that date. For charges laid on or after it, the equivalent is s. 278.29, with the procedure in ss. 278.3 and 278.31.

An application to use evidence of the complainant’s sexual activity other than the activity charged. The accused applies under ss. 278.93 and 278.94 of the Criminal Code for charges laid before July 18, 2026, and under ss. 276.01 and 276.02 for charges laid from that date. Before July 18, 2026, the Crown had to bring a common law Seaboyer application instead; for charges laid from that date, the Crown applies under s. 276.06.

Seven days before Stage One under the old s. 278.93(4). For charges laid on or after July 18, 2026, 60 days (s. 278.3(5)). In both cases the judge may allow a shorter interval in the interests of justice.

Yes, at the second stage. The complainant is not a compellable witness but may appear, make submissions and have counsel. The complainant cannot cross-examine the accused; only the Crown can (R v J.J., paras. 100–101).

An "intimate image" does not include photos that are simply embarrassing or unflattering. The term "intimate images" is intended to refer to images that relate to the core of a person's privacy interest. These images often depict explicit sexual activity or nudity or partial nudity that is captured on film or video consensually. An "intimate image" is defined as a visual recording of a person made by any means including a photographic, film or video recording, in which the person engaged in any of the following situations:

1. the person is nude or nearly nude
2. the person is exposing their sexual organs
3. the person is engaged in explicit sexual activity

Since July 18, 2026 the definition also covers an image made by electronic or mechanical means, including AI software, that shows an identifiable person in one of those situations and is likely to be mistaken for a real recording of them.

Yes, for conduct on or after July 18, 2026. Parliament expanded section 162.1 so that a realistic sexual deepfake of an identifiable person is treated as an intimate image. Before that date, the offence applied only to real recordings.

Yes. Since July 18, 2026, threatening to publish or share an intimate image, with the intent to intimidate or to be taken seriously, is an offence under section 162.1(1.1). It carries up to 10 years on indictment and can also be prosecuted summarily. Depending on the facts, a threat can also lead to charges such as extortion or criminal harassment.

In cases where the intimate image depicts a person under the age of 18 engaged in explicit sexual activity or the dominant purpose of the recording is the depiction for a sexual purpose of that person's sexual organs, the image constitutes child sexual abuse and exploitation material (formerly called child pornography) and is captured by the Criminal Code of Canada's provisions found in section 163.1, which carry far heavier penalties.

At the time of the recording, the person being recorded must be in circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy before the person charged with publishing the image can be convicted of the crime.

The main defences are that the image is not an intimate image, that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy, that the image was not shared knowingly or was sent by someone else, that the person consented to that sharing, and that the conduct served the public good. Each is explained in the defences section above.

The Crown carries the burden throughout. It must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt; the accused does not have to prove innocence.

If convicted on indictment, the maximum penalty is 10 years in prison (14 years where the image was made during an aggravated sexual assault). If prosecuted by summary conviction, the maximum penalty is two years less a day in jail, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. There is no mandatory minimum, so outcomes range widely with the facts. The court can add an internet prohibition, a deletion order, forfeiture of devices and restitution for the cost of removing the image.

Usually, yes. Publishing an intimate image without consent is a designated offence that can trigger a sexual offender registry order. The court must make the order unless the person shows it would have no connection to the registry's purpose or would be grossly disproportionate, and in some cases it is mandatory. In most cases the order lasts 10 years after a summary prosecution and 20 years after an indictment.

Yes. Where an intimate image has been posted online and an offence under section 162.1 was committed, the court must order the custodian of the computer system to delete it within 48 hours. A sentencing judge can also order the offender to repay the reasonable cost of removing the image from the internet.

Yes. Voyeurism is a criminal offence under section 162 of the Criminal Code. It can be prosecuted by summary conviction or by indictment, where it carries up to 10 years in prison. Sharing, selling or publishing a recording you know was made this way is a separate offence with the same penalties.

The legal definition of voyeurism under section 162(1) of the Criminal Code is precise and goes far beyond the common understanding of the term. Voyeurism is defined as secretly observing or recording a person in circumstances where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. For a conviction, the Crown prosecutor must prove three core components beyond a reasonable doubt.

1) Secret Observation or Recording

The act must be "surreptitious," which the courts have interpreted using its ordinary dictionary meaning. This means the Crown must prove the observation or recording was done secretly, without the other person's knowledge.

2) A Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

The person being observed must have been in a situation or place where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy. This is a critical element that depends heavily on the specific facts of the case.

3) The Circumstances of the Observation

Finally, the Crown must prove the observation or recording met one of three specific conditions:

• It was done for a sexual purpose.
• The person being observed was nude or nearly nude, exposing their sexual organs, or engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the observation or recording was done for the purpose of observing or recording them in that state.
• The person was in a place where they could reasonably be expected to be in a state of undress (nude or nearly nude, exposing their sexual organs, or engaged in explicit sexual activity), such as a bedroom or shower stall.

It is also an offence to print, copy, publish, distribute, circulate, sell, advertise, or make available voyeuristic recordings when you know they were obtained illegally. "Recording" includes photographs, film, or video captured by any means.

For related information, see our page on sexual assault defence.

Courts interpret "secret" or "surreptitious" by its ordinary meaning. Examples include:

• A camera concealed in a stepdaughter's bedroom
• A hidden camera in a hotel shaving bag recording a 13-year-old girl showering
• A video device placed in an office washroom wastebasket aimed at the toilet
• A co-worker secretly photographing another at an office urinal
• A person in a parked car using a zoom lens to record a child being changed

In contrast, a judge has found that openly taking photos at a nude beach with an ordinary camera did not amount to surreptitious recording; the accused was acquitted in that case.

Whether a person had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is often the central issue in a voyeurism defence. This is not a simple question; it is a legal determination based on the totality of the circumstances.

Courts consider several key factors when making this assessment, including:

• The Location: A person's expectation of privacy is much higher in a private space like a bedroom or bathroom compared to a public location like a beach.
• The Use of Technology: The use of technology to enhance an observation (e.g., a hidden camera or telephoto lens) can create a privacy violation even in a seemingly public space.
• The Person's Attributes: The personal characteristics of the individual being observed, including their age, are relevant to the analysis.

Importantly, the law recognizes that a person can be in a place where they can be reasonably expected to be undressed, such as a changing room. In such a location, the legal requirement for a reasonable expectation of privacy can be met, even if the person was not actually undressed at the specific moment of observation.

Examples of locations where a reasonable expectation of privacy has been found include:

• A men's urinal while in use at the workplace
• The bathroom of a private home
• A women's shower area in a gym or pool facility
• An office washroom with a hidden camera positioned to capture private use

However, courts have ruled that locations such as nude-optional public beaches and a storage room that doubled as a shared staff change room did not attract a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances of those cases. By contrast, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that students in a high-school classroom can have a reasonable expectation of privacy against being secretly recorded (R v Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10).

A voyeurism charge involves two distinct mental elements, known in law as mens rea. Both must be proven by the Crown.

The Intent to Observe in Secret

To secure a conviction, the Crown must prove the observation was deliberately concealed. It is not enough to prove the observation was merely intentional; the Crown must prove you specifically intended for it to be secret.

The Purpose of the Observation

When the "sexual purpose" of the observation is a key element of the charge, the court applies an objective test. The question is not what was subjectively in your mind at the time, but rather how a "reasonable observer" would perceive the act. A court will look at the recording or observation in its full context and ask whether it would be reasonably perceived as being for the purpose of sexual stimulation. This objective standard is a challenging legal hurdle and a critical area where an expert defence is essential.

Smartphones, miniaturized cameras, and drones have increased voyeurism allegations. Courts treat recordings captured by new technology with the same seriousness as traditional surreptitious methods.

Several defences may apply:

• Public good: The observation served the public interest and did not extend beyond what was necessary.
• No surreptitious recording: The recording was not made secretly.
• No expectation of privacy: The complainant was in a location where privacy could not reasonably be expected.
• No sexual purpose: The content or context did not involve exposure of sexual organs or sexual activity and was not for sexual gratification.

Every case is fact-specific. An experienced Toronto criminal lawyer must review the evidence to build the best defence.

A conviction for voyeurism carries severe and long-lasting penalties that can impact every area of your life.

Voyeurism is a "hybrid offence," which means the Crown can choose how to proceed. If they proceed by summary conviction, the maximum penalty is imprisonment for two years less one day, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. If they proceed by indictment, the maximum penalty is 10 years in prison. Parliament raised that maximum from five years on July 18, 2026.

There is no mandatory minimum sentence for voyeurism. Courts consider the seriousness of the offence, prior criminal record, and aggravating factors such as breaches of trust or use of hidden technology when arriving at a fit sentence.

A discharge is available because voyeurism has no minimum sentence and its maximum is below 14 years. With a discharge, you are found guilty but no conviction is registered. Whether one is appropriate depends on the facts, your background and whether it is in your interests and not contrary to the public interest.

Not automatically. Voyeurism is a “secondary” offence under the registry law. A court can order registration only if the Crown applies for it and proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the voyeurism was committed with the intent to commit a more serious “primary” sexual offence, such as sexual assault. Where an order is made, its length depends on how the case was prosecuted:

• Summary conviction: 10 years on the registry
• Indictable conviction: 20 years on the registry
• Multiple convictions: Lifetime registration where two or more registrable offences in the same case show a pattern of behaviour, or where the person has a prior conviction for a primary sexual offence or an earlier registry order

Learn more about Canada's Sexual Offender Registry, or read our guide to how the Sex Offender Registry works.

Beyond imprisonment and registry placement, a conviction can impact:

• Employment opportunities
• Immigration status and admissibility
• International travel, particularly to the U.S.
• Personal and family relationships

A designated offence listed in s. 490.011(1) of the Criminal Code. Primary offences include sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation, incest, bestiality, child sexual abuse and exploitation material (formerly called child pornography), exposure to a child under 16, and publishing or threatening to publish an intimate image. Secondary offences, such as voyeurism, lead to an order only if the Crown proves they were committed with the intent to commit a primary offence.

In most cases, yes. From April 15, 2011 the order was automatic, but the Supreme Court struck that down in R v Ndhlovu, 2022 SCC 38. Since October 26, 2023, the order is mandatory only where the offence was prosecuted by indictment with a sentence of two years or more and a victim under 18, or where the person has a previous primary offence or registry order. In every other case the judge makes the order unless the person establishes that it has no connection to its purpose or would be grossly disproportionate (s. 490.012).

No. Receiving an absolute discharge or conditional discharge for a designated offence will avoid the requirements of the sex offender registry, because the order is made when a court imposes a sentence and a discharged person is deemed not to have been convicted (s. 730(3)). A person found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder is different: the judge makes the order unless the person establishes one of the grounds for an exemption (s. 490.012(3)).

No, unless they receive an adult sentence. SOIRA doesn't apply to a young person found guilty of a designated sexual offence unless the young person is sentenced as an adult (s. 490.011(2)).

It can. Exposing one’s sexual organs for a sexual purpose to a person under 16 (s. 173(2)) is a primary offence. An indecent act in public (s. 173(1)) is a secondary offence, so an order needs the Crown to prove it was committed with the intent to commit a primary offence.

Name and aliases, date of birth, every residence, telephone numbers, where they work, volunteer or study, height, weight and identifying marks such as tattoos or scars, vehicle details, and driver’s licence and passport numbers (SOIRA s. 5). Police may take a photograph. The offence and the order are registered from the court record.

In person within seven days of the order or of release from custody, then every year in the 30 days before the anniversary of the day that first report was due, and within seven days of any change of address, name, vehicle, driver’s licence, passport or work details. They must give at least 14 days’ notice before being away from home for seven or more days in a row, in Canada or abroad.

Ten years, twenty years or for life depending on the type of crime they committed. The length follows the offence’s maximum sentence: 10 years for a summary conviction or a maximum of 2 or 5 years, 20 years for a maximum of 10 or 14 years, and life for a maximum of life, a previous sexual offence or order, or several offences showing a pattern of increased risk (s. 490.013).

Until 50 years after the person’s death, even after the term of reporting has ended (SOIRA s. 15(1)). Before October 26, 2023 the Act said “indefinitely”. It is destroyed only after a final acquittal, a free pardon, an expungement order or certain exemption orders.

Failing to comply without a reasonable excuse is a criminal offence, and so is knowingly giving false or misleading information. Each carries up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to $10,000, or both (ss. 490.031, 490.0311).

Police, for preventing and investigating crimes of a sexual nature and checking compliance, and a few other authorised bodies such as the Canada Border Services Agency. At this time, the public does not have access to the information contained on the National Sexual Offender Registry.

No. Neither the national registry nor Ontario’s own registry under Christopher’s Law is open to the public. Both are police databases.

Yes. A person may apply for a termination order after 5 years for a 10-year order, after 10 years for a 20-year order, and after 20 years for a lifetime order (s. 490.015(1)). Regardless of the period of time that has elapsed, a person may apply for early termination of the order once they receive a pardon or once a record suspension is granted.

The judge must be satisfied that the person has established that continuing the order would have no connection to helping police prevent or investigate sexual crimes, or that its impact on them, including on their privacy or liberty, would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in protecting society through the effective prevention or investigation of crimes of a sexual nature (s. 490.016). The court weighs the offence, the victim, the relationship, the person’s circumstances and history, and expert opinion.

Yes. The prosecutor or the person subject to the order can appeal the decision to make, or not make, an order, or its length, on a question of law or mixed law and fact (s. 490.014).

The offence of sexual exploitation is set out in s. 153 of the Criminal Code of Canada and is engaged when a person who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency, or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person

• touches (directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object) any part of the body of the young person for a sexual purpose;
• invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch their own body, the body of the person inviting them, or anyone else’s body, for a sexual purpose; or
• invites, counsels or incites the young person to expose their own sexual organs for a sexual purpose.

A young person includes anyone who is over sixteen years of age but under the age of eighteen years. Below sixteen, the offences that apply are sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching (ss. 151 and 152), whatever the relationship between the two people.

The Crown must prove a “relationship of dependency” between the accused and the young person, that the accused person was in a “position of trust or authority” with respect to the young person, or that the accused was in a relationship with the young person that was exploitative of them. The Crown must also prove a “touching” for a “sexual purpose”, or an invitation to touch or to expose for a sexual purpose, and the mental element for each of those things.

A position of trust will be determined by giving consideration to a number of factors including (but not limited to):

• The position an accused person holds in relation to the young person. Does the relationship between them create an obligation or responsibility?;
• Whether a duty of care is imposed on the accused in relation to the young person;
• Whether the relationship is accompanied by an authority by the dominant person over the young person;
• The positions of both the accused and the complainant in whatever relationship they may have;
• the evolution of the relationship;
• the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person;
• the age of the young person;
• the age difference between the accused and the young person.

What is important is the nature of their relationship. A position of trust creates an opportunity for an individual to persuade or influence a young person. A position of authority is not limited to a formal role: it extends to any relationship in which the accused in fact exercises that kind of power. A large age difference on its own is not enough.

No. It has been argued that the accused person must appreciate that they are in a position of trust or authority and must consciously use that position to obtain the sexual participation of the young person, and that there must be some indication of oppressive or exploiting conduct which, in context, demonstrates an abuse of the position. The Supreme Court of Canada rejected that argument in 1996: proof that the accused actually exploited their privileged position is not a constituent element of the offence. Parliament has since added a third branch to section 153 for a relationship that is exploitative of the young person, and section 153(1.2) lets a judge infer that from the nature and circumstances of the relationship.

If the accused person intends to have sexual interaction of any kind with a young person, and with that intention makes contact with the young person’s body, they have “touched” the complainant for the purposes of a sexual exploitation charge. Touching involves physical contact with any part of a person’s body. The contact may be direct, for example, touching a person with a hand or other part of the body, or indirect, for example, touching a person with an object. Applying force to the complainant is not required. Nor does it matter whether the young person agreed to the touching. The touching must be intentional, as opposed to accidental.

The touching had a sexual purpose if it was done for the accused person’s sexual gratification or for the purpose of violating the young person’s sexual integrity, including any act meant to degrade or demean the young person in a sexual way.

Sixteen. With consent, it is not illegal in Canada to have a sexual relationship with someone older than sixteen years of age, regardless of the age difference between the two parties — unless the older person is in a position of trust or authority towards them, the young person is in a relationship of dependency with them, or the relationship is exploitative. Below sixteen, narrow close-in-age exceptions allow sexual activity between people close in age where no such position or relationship exists.

No. Section 150.1(1) of the Criminal Code provides that consent is not a defence to a charge under section 153. That is the point of the section: where the relationship is one of trust, authority, dependency or exploitation, Parliament has placed the responsibility for declining any sexual contact on the older person.

No. The close-in-age exceptions in sections 150.1(2) and 150.1(2.1) apply to sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault where the complainant is 12 to 15 — not to sexual exploitation. They are also expressly unavailable to anyone in a position of trust or authority, a relationship of dependency, or an exploitative relationship. The age difference between the two people is still relevant, but as one of the factors a judge may use to infer that a relationship was exploitative.

It is not a defence that the accused believed that the complainant was eighteen years of age or older at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant and honestly believed the person they were touching was at least eighteen years old. Whether the steps taken were enough is measured against what a reasonable person would have done in the same circumstances, and the sexual activity itself is never one of them.

Whether the Crown Attorney proceeds summarily or by indictment will dictate the mandatory minimum punishment and maximum punishments for the offence. Where the Crown Attorney proceeds summarily, the mandatory minimum punishment for sexual exploitation is 90 days in jail, up to a maximum of two years less a day in jail. Where the Crown Attorney proceeds by indictment, the minimum punishment is one year in jail, up to a maximum punishment of fourteen years in jail.

Since a sexual exploitation allegation can cover a wide range of behaviour — from touching someone over their clothing to full intercourse — each case must be considered individually to assess the appropriate outcome. When a judge is deciding on a sentence for sexual exploitation, they will consider many factors, such as the offender’s criminal record and personal circumstances, and the circumstances of the case. Each case is unique.

Yes. Courts in several provinces had found the one-year and 90-day minimums for this family of offences unconstitutional. The Protecting Victims Act (2026, c. 19), in force on 18 July 2026, restored them. Section 718.4 now allows a court to impose a shorter term of imprisonment than the minimum where the minimum “would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for that offender”, with written reasons — but the sentence is still imprisonment, and the shorter term is treated as the minimum.

No. A discharge is not available for an offence that carries a minimum punishment or a maximum of fourteen years (s. 730), and sexual exploitation is both. A conditional sentence served in the community is not available for an offence punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment (s. 742.1(b)), and since 2026 it is also unavailable for any indictable sexual offence involving a victim under 18. The realistic goals in most cases are a withdrawal, an acquittal, or a resolution to a charge that does not carry those consequences.

Anyone convicted of sexual exploitation will normally be placed on the sex offender registry (SOIRA) for a period of at least ten years. Where the Crown prosecutes the charge by indictment, the period of time on the registry is twenty years. In some cases, a person convicted of sexual exploitation can be placed on the sexual offender registry for life. The order is automatic where the Crown proceeded by indictment and the sentence is two years or more; in other cases the judge must make it unless the offender establishes that it would serve no purpose or that its impact would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest.

There are also other indirect consequences of a conviction for sexual exploitation. For example, a person who is not a Canadian citizen could in some cases face deportation, or difficulty getting citizenship after a conviction. Having a criminal record with a sexual exploitation conviction can severely limit someone’s options for work, or in some cases prevent them from continuing their career at all. A criminal record for sexual exploitation can also make it difficult to travel outside of Canada, and some countries will deny entry to someone with a serious criminal record. A DNA order is mandatory, and the court must also consider a section 161 prohibition order.

Sexual assault (s. 271) is about the absence of consent. Sexual exploitation is about the relationship: the young person’s agreement is irrelevant, and the Crown proves the position or relationship instead. The two can be charged together on the same facts. See our page on defending sexual assault charges, and our guide to the first steps to take after an allegation.

Yes. Communicating by telecommunication — text, direct message or any online platform — with a person under 18 for the purpose of facilitating a sexual exploitation offence is a separate charge under section 172.1. It carries a maximum of 14 years and a one-year minimum on indictment, or two years less a day and a six-month minimum summarily. Where the messages are the Crown’s main evidence, the two charges usually arrive together.

No. Below 16 the offences are sexual interference (s. 151) and invitation to sexual touching or exposure (s. 152), which do not require any position of trust or authority. They carry the same maximum and the same minimums as sexual exploitation. Where the accused is themselves a young person, the case is prosecuted under the Youth Criminal Justice Act — see defending youth criminal charges.

Selling sexual services is not a crime anywhere in Canada. Buying them is, under s. 286.1 of the Criminal Code. So the answer depends entirely on which side of the transaction you are on.

No. Section 286.5 protects a person from prosecution in relation to the offering or provision of their own sexual services, including for aiding, abetting, conspiring or attempting in relation to ss. 286.1 to 286.4. The law targets the purchaser, not the seller.

Advertising or providing companionship is not an offence, and the person selling their own services cannot be prosecuted. What creates the offence is a purchaser obtaining, or communicating to obtain, a sexual service for consideration. The word used in the advertisement does not decide it.

It can be. Communicating with anyone for the purpose of obtaining sexual services for consideration completes the offence, and a message thread is communication. No meeting and no payment is required.

It does not matter. The offence is complete on the communication.

The Crown must prove you intended to obtain sexual services for consideration. Someone who is not serious, who is joking, or who never meant to carry the transaction through has not committed the offence — though that argument has to be built out of the recording.

Yes. The offence does not require that the other person actually be a sex worker. Sting operations are the ordinary way these charges arise.

No. The offence is framed around obtaining, or communicating in order to obtain, sexual services for consideration. Discussion of price and ability to pay is evidence of intention, not an element that has to be completed.

A first appearance is administrative: it confirms disclosure and sets the next date, and you do not enter a plea. Where the Crown agrees to divert the charge, it is withdrawn on completion of a programme and there is no conviction. Diversion now sits in Part XXII.2 of the Criminal Code (ss. 715.44–715.6); the former s. 717 was repealed in July 2026. Availability varies between courthouses and Crown offices, and eligibility usually turns on the absence of a prior record.

If you are convicted, yes — and a discharge is not available, because s. 730 cannot be used where the offence carries a minimum punishment. If the charge is diverted or withdrawn, there is no conviction and no record of one.

On indictment, up to five years, with a mandatory minimum fine of $1,000, or $2,000 for a subsequent offence. On summary conviction, up to a $5,000 fine or two years less a day or both, with a minimum fine of $500, or $1,000 for a subsequent offence. The minimums double where the offence is committed in or next to a park, the grounds of a school or religious institution, or anywhere people under 18 can reasonably be expected to be. Where the person is under 18, s. 286.1(2) applies: up to 14 years, with a mandatory minimum of six months in jail.

Court proceedings are public, and some police services have published the names of people charged in sting operations.