Canada Case Law

R. v. West

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal is dismissed because (1) recklessness suffices for internet luring under s.172.1(1)(a) per R. v. Fox and there is no basis to disturb that conviction, and (2) on the trial judge's unchallenged factual findings the appellant was wilfully blind to the complainant's age (equivalent to knowledge) for the possession offence, so that conviction stands; alternatively the curative proviso cures any omission.

Source excerpt

• Mens rea
• Wilful blindness
• Recklessness
• Curative proviso
• Credibility findings
• Statutory interpretation

Read case analysis

R. v. R.B.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The four-year global sentence was fit because the offences were serious, internet luring combined with making child pornography warrants increased punishment post-amendment, statutory minimums applied, and several aggravating factors (position of trust, careful planning, grooming and exploitation of poverty) justified consecutive sentences within a four-year global sentence; the sentencing judge applied the accepted approach to multiple offences.

Source excerpt

• Consecutive sentences
• Mitigation and aggravation
• Position of trust
• Grooming
• Statutory minimums
• Publication ban

Read case analysis

R. v. Collins

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge correctly concluded that the necessary mens rea for internet luring was established before the meeting date and a last‑minute decision not to proceed did not negate that intent, therefore the conviction stands.

Source excerpt

• Internet luring
• Mens rea
• Intent
• Trial judge review
• Online communications

Read case analysis

R. v. Chiang

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal upheld Pai-Chih Chiang’s conviction under s. 212(4) and held the police sting did not amount to entrapment.

• S.212(4) communication offence
• Actus reus vs reactive speech
• Mens rea (purpose)
• Stay of proceedings
• Sting operations
• Criminal-law

Read case analysis