Our Experience
The Firm regularly defends high-profile allegations of child luring, sexual interference and child pornography. These offences are aggressively prosecuted. Beyond the potential for severe penal sanctions, a conviction hosts a myriad of profound social, relationship, employment and travel consequences. We handle a number of sex offences, including situations where the solicitation of a minor on the internet or luring is involved. These investigations often involve the use of sophisticated police technologies and the use of forensic internet tracing tools. People often associated luring charges with the Dark-Net and private chatrooms, however, may cases are prosecuted on Locanto, Kik, Snapchat, Facebook and other popular social media platforms that cooperate with police. Many people are also charged who never actually physically meet the other person.
If you are charged with a child sex offence, you can expect to be placed on bail or sentenced with specific prohibition orders restricting your contact with children. Some of these conditions include places children may be or restrictions on internet use. If you have been charged or will be arrested for a sex offence, you should consider the implications of a publication ban during the proceeding.
The Firm regularly defends complex and sophisticated luring stings such as Project Raphael prosecuted in Newmarket. The police tactics used in these complex investigations are often borderline entrapment, where a series of messages are exchanged with an undercover operative initially posing as an adult. Responses elicited by the accused can then be construed and brought into evidence as an admission for seeking sexual services from a minor.
- Toronto Star: Pornhub and Revenge Porn.
- Toronto Star: New Corporate Liability for Child Pornography in Canada.
- Toronto Star: Police Power and Social Media Companies.
- Global News: Can an airline tell you to stop recording and delete a cellphone video?
- Métro Montréal: Avec le temps chaud, il n’y a pas que le mercure qui grimpe: le nombre de cas de voyeurisme aussi.
- CityNews: As the temperatures outside get warmer, police say the reported number of cases of voyeurism tend to rise.
- VICE News: An Image Site is Victimizing Women and Little Can be Done.
In 2021, the Firm represented an accused charged with one count of making sexually explicit material available to a child and three counts of child luring in R. v. P.E. [2021]. The accused was arrested after communicating with an undercover officer online for the purposes of engaging in sexual activity with a minor. The Firm brought an entrapment Charter challenge ultimately leading to the 3 child luring charges being withdrawn at the request of the Crown one week before trial. There are no plea deals with any online child exploitations charges, the accused was facing penitentiary jail time which is standard. Generally, any type of favorable resolution is achieved by attacking the evidence and investigative techniques used. In some circumstances, challenging the search warrant may also be an option, where the officers extract forensic data.
In November, 2016, the Firm secured a withdrawal of 9 sex offences against a TTC Driver charged with luring a child in its R. v. A.H. [2016]. The high profile case involved allegations that the accused was meeting the young person while on the job as a driver. The child’s parents discovered the alleged relationship when her phone was searched. The Firm mounted an aggressive and united defence with counsel for the complainant. This significantly weakened the Crown’s case and their ability to use evidence at trial. The damage to the case was sufficient to have all sex charges withdrawn and the matter resolved without any criminal record to the accused. His name was cleared and he was given a second chance.
Online Sex Offence are on the Rise in Canada
In the Firm’s R. v. T.T. [2022], the accused was charged with 10 child sex offences. Some of the charges related to child pornography and child luring. He had allegedly been doing criminal behaviour for decades and was only recently caught by law enforcement. Police allegedly discovered old computer and cell phones used to commit the offences and smartphones for communication on social media platforms. The Crown was treating the accused as a dangerous offender because he allegedly lured children by pretending to also be a child. He was facing double digit penitentiary time given the large number of charges with mandatory minimums. The Firm was able to secure a withdrawal of nearly all charges by advancing a s.11(b) Charter argument associated COVID-19 lockdowns, delivering a favorable plea deal.
In 2021, the Toronto Police reported 365 victims of sexual violations under the age of 12. There was a total of 576 victims of sexual violations between the ages of 12-17. Child luring is often listed under “other criminal code violations” in statistics, and in the year 2021, the Toronto Police reported 13,927 cases of other criminal code violations. Statistics Canada reported that luring a child accounts for 77% of online sexual offences against children.
Law Newbie is a free AI research assistant that can help you safely answer questions about criminal law.
Frequently Asked Questions
What to do if Charged with Child Luring in Toronto?
If you have been charged with child luring in Toronto it is important first and foremost to retain experienced legal counsel. Child luring charges can be difficult to defend due to complex procedural rules and rules of evidence. Those convicted of child luring will be sentenced harshly. In many cases, the accused individual was communicating with an undercover police officer posing as a young person. In these situations, the case can become even more complicated.
Bail Plan
If you become aware of an allegation of child luring prior to arrest, it is important to have a bail plan in place. Those charged with child luring are typically held for bail and released on strict conditions. These conditions often include a residential surety and almost always include conditions heavily restricting access to the internet and to places that children frequent. These conditions are likely to remain in place for several months and in some cases for more than a year, especially where there is a trial. An accused who does not have an adequate bail plan in place prior to going into custody will often remain in custody for longer.
What if I was Communicating with an Undercover Officer?
It is quite common for police officers to pose as young people online in an attempt to catch individuals engaged in child luring offences. Officers typically post a profile indicating they are underage and then wait to see if any adults attempt to engage with it. If someone does, the undercover will communicate back and forth with the adult posing as the underage individual. These communications will then be saved and used as evidence against the accused should they be arrested.
The Criminal Code indicates that an individual is guilty of child luring when they use a telecommunication device to communicate with a person who is, or whom the accused believes is underage. This means that an individual is still guilty of the offence even where there was no actual child. As long as the accused believed the person they were communicating with was underage, they are guilty of the offence.
When sentencing an individual for child luring involving an undercover officer, the Court typically does not offer much mitigation. While the offender can argue that no actual child was harmed as a result of the offence, the Court tends to view this as the absence of an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating factor.
What if I did not have Sex with the Complainant in a Luring Case?
Whether or not an accused person actually engaged in sexual activity with the complainant in a child luring case is irrelevant in determining guilt. Pursuant to section 172.1 of the Criminal Code, an individual commits the offence of child luring when they use a telecommunication device to communicate with an individual who is, or whom the accused believes is underage for the purposes of committing certain sexual offences. The Code breaks the offence down into three categories, those under 18, those under 16 and those under 14 years of age. Each section contains a list of sexual offences that apply to that section.
For example, section 172.1(1)(b) of the Code lists the offence of section 271 (sexual assault) under the category related to individuals under the age of 16. This means that it is a crime, pursuant to this section, to communicate with an individual who is, or whom the accused believes is under the age of 16 for the purposes of facilitating the crime of sexual assault. Since an individual under the age of 16 is not legally capable of consenting to sexual activity of any kind of what an adult, any sexual activity between an adult and a person under 16 is considered sexual assault. For the purposes of a luring charge, it does not matter whether the sexual activity occurred. If the purpose of the communication was to facilitate sexual activity, the accused is guilty of luring.
How to Defend a Child Luring Charge?
When developing the appropriate defence strategy for a case, the defence must first consider all the evidence in the possession of the Crown and the specifics of the allegations. This can be accomplished through a thorough review of the disclosure. A successful defence must be uniquely tailored to the specific case. In child luring cases, there are a few common defences often utilized. They include the defence of mistaken belief in age, lack of intent, or arguing that the accused’s Charter rights were violated.
Mistaken Belief in Age
A common defence used in child luring cases is the defence of honest but mistaken belief in age. One of the primary elements of the offence the Crown must prove is that the complainant was underage at the time the accused communicated with them. Where the accused can prove that they honestly believed the complainant was above the age of consent they may be acquitted. To be successful with this defence, the accused must prove that they took reasonable steps to ascertain the true age of the complainant. The Court expects adults to take significant steps and be absolutely sure of a young person’s age prior to engaging in sexual activity with them. This defence can be difficult to advance as a result.
Lack of Intent
To be convicted of the offence of child luring the Crown must prove that the accused communicated with the minor for the purpose of facilitating certain sexual offences. For example, an adult communicating with a minor for the purpose of meeting up to engage in sexual activity. In some cases, the defence may argue that the accused was not communicating with the young person for the purpose of facilitating a sexual offence. If the accused can show that they had no intention of meeting up with the minor or of facilitating any other offence, they cannot be convicted of luring. Where the accused engaged in conversations that were sexually suggestive in nature, this defence will generally not be successful. Similarly, where the accused attempts to arrange to meet the complainant, this defence may fail.
Charter Violations
When an individual is arrested and charged with a criminal offence, they have certain rights pursuant to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Should any of these rights be violated during the investigation and arrest of the accused, the accused may be entitled to a remedy which may include excluding evidence or staying the charges.
For example, section 11(b) of the Charter provides that Canadians have the right to a trial within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court has decided that a reasonable time is 18 months in the Ontario Court of Justice and 30 months in the Superior Court of Justice. Where it takes longer to reach trial and the delay is attributed to the Crown, the accused’s right will have been violated. The accused must then bring a motion arguing that their right was violated and asking for their charges to be stayed. If successful, the Court will stay the charges and the proceedings against the accused will cease.
What are Common Penalties for Child Luring in Toronto?
The Criminal Code provides for a maximum of 14 years in prison for those convicted of child luring when the Crown proceeds by indictment. The maximum prison sentence is two years less a day where the Crown elects to proceed summarily. In the majority of child luring cases, the Crown will proceed by indictment to allow for increased penalties upon sentencing.
In the Supreme Court of Canada case R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, the Supreme Court heard an appeal involving the sentencing for an offender convicted of sexually abusing a child. In its decision, the Court stated that prison sentences for offences involving the sexual abuse of children should be on the increase. They indicated that mid-single digit prison sentences are normal and provided a sentencing range of upper single digit to lower double digit prison sentences.
Offenders who are convicted of child luring are routinely sentenced to between 1 year and 6 years in prison. The length of the sentence will depend on a number of factors including the offender’s criminal history, whether a real child was involved, the nature of the communications and any other aggravating or mitigating factors the Court deems relevant.
Breakfast Television
Mental Health Concerns in the Justice System.
CP24
The Difference between Criminal and Civil Liability.
CTV News National
The Rise of Gun Violence in Toronto.
Global News
New Changes to Pardons in Canada.
Recent Cases
R. v. T.B., 2025 ONCJ 375
In the 2025 case of R. v. T.B., the offender pled guilty to one count of child luring after having communicated online with an undercover officer posing as a 14-year-old girl. The offender had engaged in conversations of a highly sexual nature with the undercover officer, requested photos of the girl, and sent her sexual photos of himself. The offender was very cooperative during the police investigation and made it known that he intended to plead guilty from the outset of the proceedings. The Court noted the Supreme Court case of Friesen in coming to the appropriate sentence. The Court noted that the accused had voluntarily attended counselling prior to sentencing but also that the conversations had been very sexually explicit and occurred over an extended period of 9 days. The Court sentenced the offender to 22 months in custody, noting this was on the lower end of the sentencing spectrum for this offence. The guilty plea and counselling were heavily mitigating. The offender was placed on 18 months’ probation following his release from custody and placed on the sex offender registry for 20 years.
R. v . J.P.K.-M., 2026 ONCA 146
In the 2026 case of R. v. J.P.K.-M., the offender appealed his conviction for child luring, as well as a number of other child sexual offences. The offender engaged in sexually explicit conversations and asked the complainant repeatedly to meet up to engage in sex when he was 20 and the complainant was 14. The offender argued he believed the complainant was 15 as she had told him so. The trial judge had found the offender was reckless when it came to ascertaining the complainant’s age resulting in his defence of mistaken belief in age failing. The appeal court found that the offender had in fact not taken sufficient reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant’s age and upheld the luring conviction.
R. v. J.M., 2025 ONCA 686
In the 2025 Ontario Court of Appeal case of R. v. J.M., the offender appealed both his sentence and conviction for child luring and other child sexual abuse offences. The trial court found that the offender had engaged in sexually explicit communications with a 12-year-old girl and then threatened her and her father. At trial, the offender denied being the party responsible for the messages. In reviewing the evidence from trial, the Court rejected the offender’s appeal, upholding the conviction. The offender also appealed his sentence despite the fact that it was the sentence his lawyer had advocated for during sentencing. The offender argued that his sentence should have been reduced to account for the time he spent on strict house arrest pre-trial. The Court rejected this argument, indicating that the sentence imposed was reasonable and fit in the circumstances.
Related Content
New Changes in 2024
Child Pornography Sentences are Increasing.
CAS will Interview your Family
Children's Aid Society (CAS) Investigations when Charged.
Reporting Child Pornography
Child Pornography must be Reported to Police.
Getting Bail for Child Porn
There are Special Conditions to Release Offenders.
About the Author
Jordan Donich
Jordan Donich has been a Lawyer for over 10 years and is a trusted legal analyst by Canadian Media. He is as a leader in Canada’s tech sector for lawyers and developer of Law Newbie. Jordan is a Black Belt with the Japan Karate Association and trained in Krav Maga. He won a Gold Medal at 2004 Canadian National Championships and was published in the National Newspaper Awards.
Jordan has been featured in Forbes, Canadian Lawyer and is a member of DMZ Angels in Toronto.
