Frequently Asked Questions
What Are the Ancillary Orders Associated with Child Luring?
When convicted of the offence of child luring, a Court may subject the offender to ancillary orders in addition to a sentence to ensure public safety.
The DNA Identification Act created Canada’s national DNA database to help law enforcement identify individuals who have been convicted of a primary designated offence. The database was designed to assist officers in investigations by using DNA to track down or eliminate suspects. Luring is a primary designated offence. If a person is convicted of one of the primary designated offences as outlined in section 487.04(a), the Court must make an order for the acquisition of their bodily fluids to be entered into a database.
The Court may also subject the offender to a SOIRA order. The Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) established Canada’s national sex offender registry and assists law enforcement by helping them identify and prosecute suspects. When an offender is sentenced for a primary designated offence enumerated in s. 490.011(a), it is mandatory to be registered with SOIRA.
A section 161 order is an order restricting the offender’s access to children. This provision is mandatory when an offender commits a child-related sexual offence. Different subsections of the section specifically prohibit the accused from engaging in certain activities and/or attending certain locations.
The Friesen Case?
The Supreme Court of Canada case of R. v. Friesen,  SCC 9, is a landmark case that enumerated sentencing principles for child-related sexual offences. The defendant had met the 4-year-old victim’s mother on an online dating website, and after having consensual sex with her, asked her to invite her daughter into the room. The defendant then sexually assaulted the child. After a confrontation, the defendant fled the scene. The defendant pled guilty to sexual interference and attempted extortion.
The trial judge gave the defendant six years in prison, basing his decision on the decision by the Manitoba Court of Appeals in R. v. Sidwell,  MBCA 56, for offences committed against children. The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the sentence for a lower sentence of four years and six months. The Supreme Court of Canada then overturned the appeal, restoring the original trial judge’s sentence of six years. Understanding that the purpose of legislating child-related sexual offences was to protect society in the interest of the public, the Court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles for any child-related sexual offences. The Court also indicated that the average penalties for sexual offences against children should be on the increase. The court noted that upper single digit to lower double digit prison sentences for these offences should be the average.
Will a Luring Conviction Affect My Ability to Participate in my Kid’s Programs?
Yes, this charge will almost certainly affect the accused’s ability to participate in any children’s programs. When an accused is charged with a sexual offence involving a child they will almost certainly have bail conditions restricting their access to children. Such conditions would prohibit the accused to working or volunteering with children.
Additionally, when an individual is convicted of a sexual offence involving a child, like child luring, section 161 of the Criminal Code is applicable. Section 161 of the Criminal Code limits an offender’s access to children. This would prohibit the offender from accessing communal spaces where children may be and bars them from any employment or volunteer opportunities involving children. A severe section 161 order may even prohibit the accused from interacting with their own children.
If the person is convicted of child luring, section 161 is also an ancillary order that may last for a lifetime. In addition, the accused must comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and register with a registration centre. This conviction will show up on any background check and may affect prospective travel or employment opportunities.
What if I Work or Volunteer Around Children in London?
If an accused works or volunteers with children, they must halt those activities as soon as they get the order restricting their access to children. The Court is more concerned with public interest and the protection of children. The accused must quit and find another line of work. Breaking a bail condition or ancillary order is a crime and an accused who breaches their conditions is likely to be charged.
Will I be Able to be Around my Own Children?
Whether or not an individual can have access to their own children after being charged with luring will be determined on a case-by-case basis. The age of the victims as well as the age of the children of the accused may play a large factor. For example, if an offender was convicted of attempting to lure a 16 year old child and their child is a toddler, it may be unreasonable to limit the accused’s access to their own child. However, it is not uncommon for the Court to put certain conditions and restrictions on the accused’s access to their own child(ren). An offender may need supervision to be around their own child(ren).
In the Ontario Court of Appeals case of R. v. Folino,  ONCA 40543, the accused pled guilty to one count of child luring. He was sentenced to nine months’ incarceration followed by three years’ probation. There was a lifetime order under s. 161 of the Criminal Code, and a SOIRA order imposed. The accused appealed and sought to vary his ancillary orders. The Court of Appeals ruled that the sentencing judge did not consider mitigating factors and the offender’s risk of recidivism. Evidence showed that the incarceration of the offender would be detrimental to him and his three young children. A conditional sentence was imposed, and a section 161 order was varied so that the appellant may be around his children in public areas with adult supervision.