Mistaken Belief of Age

General Principles

An accused can only be found guilty of a sex offence under s. 151, 152, 160, 172.1, 173, 271, 272 or 273 which involves a minor where the accused had an honest belief the complainant was of an age of consent. The crown as part of its case should prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused failed to take sufficient steps in all the circumstances to ascertain the complainant's age.

The standard to determine the sufficiency of the steps varies depending on the offence. Offences relying on s. 150.1 require the accused take "all reasonable steps", while offences under s. 172.1(4) require "reasonable steps".

150.1
[omitted (1), (2), (2.1), (2.2), (2.3) and (3)]

Mistake of age

(4) It is not a defence to a charge under section 151 [sexual interference] or 152 [invitation to sexual touching], subsection 160(3) [bestiality in presence of or by child] or 173(2) [exposure to person under 16], or section 271 [sexual assault], 272 [sexual assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm] or 273 [aggravated sexual assault] that the accused believed that the complainant was 16 years of age or more 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.

Idem

(5) It is not a defence to a charge under section 153 [sexual exploitation], 170 [parent or guardian procuring sexual activity], 171 [householder permitting prohibited sexual activity] or 172 [corrupting children] or subsection 286.1(2) [comm. to obtain sexual services for consideration – person under 18], 286.2(2) [material benefit from sexual services provided — person under 18] or 286.3(2) [procuring — person under 18] that the accused believed that the complainant was 18 years of age or more 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.

Mistake of age

(6) An accused cannot raise a mistaken belief in the age of the complainant in order to invoke a defence under subsection (2) [consent in sexual offences – exception for complainant aged 12 or 13] or (2.1) [consent in sexual offences – exception for complainant aged 14 or 15] unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant.
R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 1; 2005, c. 32, s. 2; 2008, c. 6, ss. 13, 54; 2014, c. 25, s. 4; 2015, c. 29, s. 6; 2019, c. 25, s. 51.
[annotation(s) added]

CCC (CanLII), (DOJ)


Note up: 150.1(4), (5) and (6)


Defined terms: "complainant" (s. 2)

Luring

See also: Child Luring (Offence)

s. 172.1
[omitted (1) and (2)]

Presumption re age

(3) Evidence that the person referred to in paragraph (1)(a) [child luring – under 18 years], (b) [child luring – under 16 years] or (c) [child luring – under 14 years] was represented to the accused as being under the age of eighteen years, sixteen years or fourteen years, as the case may be, is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the accused believed that the person was under that age.

No defence

(4) It is not a defence to a charge under paragraph (1)(a) [child luring – under 18 years], (b) [child luring – under 16 years] or (c) [child luring – under 14 years] that the accused believed that the person referred to in that paragraph was at least eighteen years of age, sixteen years or fourteen years of age, as the case may be, unless the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the person.
2002, c. 13, s. 8; 2007, c. 20, s. 1; 2008, c. 6, s. 14.
[annotation(s) added]

CCC (CanLII), (DOJ)


Note up: 172.1(3) and (4)

Reasonable Steps or All Reasonable Steps

"Reasonable steps" must be assessed in context and will turn on the specific circumstances of the case.[1] Both reasonable steps and "all reasonable steps" must be assessed on the basis of an objective and reasonable person.[2]

Under s. 150.1, "all reasonable steps" is a "due diligence defence."[3] The test is whether the steps ones that “a reasonable person would take in the circumstances” to ascertain a complainant’s age.[4]

Factors to consider include:[5]

  1. knowledge of the complainant
  2. physical appearance
  3. age and appearance of the complainant's associates
  4. age differential between the accused and the complainant
  5. demeanour of the complainant
  6. the time and location of the alleged sexual assault
  7. any other relevant times or places

It is generally understood that less familiar the parties are the more steps that are required to confirm there is consent to sexual activity.[6]

The bigger the age difference between the parties the greater the expectation that the accused would make more inquiries.[7] This can mean that a simple visual observation is insufficient.[8]

Where the accused became aware that information source relating to age may have been inaccurate in the past may affect the was reasonable steps are necessary.[9]

  1. R v Thain, 2009 ONCA 223 (CanLII), [2009] OJ No 1022, per Sharpe JA, at para 43
  2. Thain, ibid., at paras 46, 47
  3. R v Hess; R v Nguyen, 1990 CanLII 89 (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 906, per Wilson J
  4. R v Dragos, 2012 ONCA 538 (CanLII), 291 CCC (3d) 350, per Cronk JA
    R v LTP, 1997 CanLII 12464 (BCCA), 113 CCC (3d) 42, per Finch J, at para 20. See also R v Hayes, [1991] AJ No 1232 (Alta. Q.B.)(*no CanLII links)
  5. R v RAK, 1996 CanLII 7277 (NB CA), 106 CCC (3d) 93, per Hoyt CJ
    LTP, supra
  6. R v Dippel, 2011 ABCA 129 (CanLII), 281 CCC (3d) 33, per curiam
    R v Crangle, 2010 ONCA 451 (CanLII), 77 CR (6th) 98, 256 CCC (3d) 234, per Goudge JA, leave to appeal refused 416 N.R. 390 (note) (SCC)
    R v S(T), 1999 CarswellOnt 245 (Ont. Gen. Div.)(*no CanLII links) , at para 158 ("A sexual encounter between persons with no history of sexual experience together...as a matter of logic and common sense, requires clear and unambiguous communication of consent, not self‑serving interpretations of equivocal or contradictory behavior.")
  7. R v RAK, 1996 CanLII 7277 (NB CA), 106 CCC (3d) 93, per Hoyt CJ
  8. R v MGB, 2005 ABPC 215 (CanLII), [2005] AJ No 1081, per Lamoureux J
  9. R v Saliba, 2013 ONCA 661 (CanLII), 304 CCC (3d) 133, per Doherty JA, at para 35