Sexual Exploitation Lawyers Toronto

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.