Table of Contents
The parent procuring sexual activity lawUCR Code 1368, and it is classified as a strictly indictable offence. Section 170 of the Criminal Code targets those in positions of trust, authority, or responsibility over a child who abuse that position by exposing the child to sexual exploitation, ensuring strong legal protection for minors.
The Legal Definition
Every parent or guardian of a person under the age of 18 years who procures the person for the purpose of engaging in any sexual activity prohibited by this Act with a person other than the parent or guardian is guilty of an indictable offence.
This definition, found in section 170 of the Criminal Code, contains several important elements. First, the accused must be a parent or guardian of the young person. This includes biological parents, adoptive parents, legal guardians, or any person who has lawful care or control of the child. Second, the young person must be under the age of 18 years, which is higher than the general age of consent in Canada, reflecting the particular vulnerability of youths in the care of adults they depend on.
Third, the parent or guardian must procure the young person for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity that is prohibited by the Criminal Code, and that activity must be with someone other than the parent or guardian. “Procuring” means arranging, causing, persuading, encouraging, or facilitating the child’s involvement in the illegal sexual activity. The sexual activity itself must be something the Criminal Code already makes unlawful (for example, sexual assault, sexual exploitation, invitation to sexual touching, or similar offences involving minors). The law does not require that the sexual activity actually occur; it is enough that the parent or guardian procures the child for that prohibited purpose.
Penalties & Sentencing Framework
- Offence type: Indictable only (no summary election available).
- Mandatory minimum sentence: Imprisonment for a term of 1 year.
- Maximum sentence: Imprisonment for a term of up to 14 years.
Because section 170 is a strictly indictable offence, it cannot proceed as a summary conviction. Indictable proceedings are reserved for the most serious crimes in Canadian law. They offer greater procedural safeguards for the accused (such as potential elections regarding mode of trial), but also expose the accused to much more severe penalties and the long-term consequences associated with a serious criminal record.
The statute imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of one year in prison. This means that if a person is convicted of this offence, the judge must impose at least one year of incarceration. The court has no discretion to go below this minimum, even if there are strong mitigating factors such as a previously clean record, remorse, or a guilty plea. At the same time, the maximum penalty of 14 years reflects Parliament’s view that using parental authority to expose a child to sexual offences is among the gravest forms of exploitation.
Within the one- to fourteen-year range, sentencing is governed by general Criminal Code principles, including denunciation, deterrence, protection of the public, rehabilitation, proportionality, and parity with similar cases. Aggravating factors may include the child’s age (the younger the child, the more serious the offence), the degree of planning and coercion, whether the parent or guardian received money or another benefit, the presence of other related offences (e.g., trafficking, sexual assault, or child pornography), and any lasting physical or psychological harm to the victim. Mitigating factors can include a genuine acceptance of responsibility, demonstrated efforts at rehabilitation, and the absence of a prior criminal record, but they cannot reduce the term below the mandatory minimum.
Common Defenses
-
Lack of intent or knowledge
To secure a conviction under the parent procuring sexual activity law, the Crown must prove that the accused intentionally procured the young person for the purpose of engaging in prohibited sexual activity, and that they knew (or were willfully blind to the fact) that the activity was illegal or that the person was under 18. A defense may arise where the accused did not understand that what they were arranging amounted to criminal sexual activity, or did not intend to facilitate sexual conduct at all. For example, if a parent introduces a teenager to an adult for a non-sexual purpose, and the adult later independently initiates illegal sexual conduct without the parent’s knowledge, the necessary intent to “procure” may be missing. Similarly, if the Crown cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the parent knew the nature of the acts or that they would be sexual and prohibited by the Criminal Code, this can undermine the mental element of the offence.
-
Mistake of fact regarding age or the nature of the activity
A related defense is an honest but mistaken belief in a set of facts that, if true, would make the conduct innocent. Under Canadian criminal law, a genuine mistake about a critical factual element—such as the young person’s age—can be a defense if it raises a reasonable doubt about the required mental element. For section 170, this may occur if the parent or guardian honestly and reasonably believed that the person was 18 or older, and took reasonable steps to confirm the age (for instance, relying on seemingly reliable documents or information). Likewise, if the parent believed the activity being arranged was lawful and non-sexual (for example, believing they were arranging a modeling job or a legitimate performance event without any sexual component), and had no reason to think otherwise, they may argue a mistake of fact about the nature of the activity. The key limitation is that mere carelessness or willful blindness—ignoring obvious warning signs—will generally not support this defense.
-
Charter rights violations (Sections 7, 8 and exclusion under Section 24(2))
Even where the essential elements of the offence appear to be met, the accused can challenge how the police obtained evidence. Under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Under section 8, everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. If, for example, police accessed private messages, seized computers or phones, or interviewed the child without proper legal authority or in a way that violated these constitutional protections, the defense can ask the court to exclude that evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter. If the judge concludes that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, key evidence may be thrown out. In some cases, this can significantly weaken the Crown’s case or even lead to an acquittal, especially where the prosecution relies heavily on digital communications or statements obtained in a manner inconsistent with Charter standards.
Real-World Example
Imagine a situation where a guardian arranges for a minor in their care to engage in sexual activities with another adult, perhaps in exchange for money or favours. The guardian contacts an adult, sends photos of the child, and sets up a meeting where sexual acts are expected to take place. Under Canadian law, this conduct falls squarely within section 170. The guardian is a person in a position of trust with legal responsibility for the child, the child is under 18, and the guardian is procuring the child for criminal sexual activity with someone else. Police would treat this as a high-priority child exploitation case. They may conduct undercover operations, obtain warrants to seize phones and computers, and coordinate with child protection authorities to ensure the safety of the minor. In court, the prosecutor would not need to show that the sexual act was ultimately completed—the arrangement itself, made for the purpose of prohibited sexual activity, is enough. If convicted, the guardian would face at least one year and up to fourteen years in prison, with sentencing likely to be on the higher end if the exploitation was motivated by financial gain or involved serious psychological harm.
Record Suspensions (Pardons)
A conviction under the parent procuring sexual activity law results in a permanent criminal record unless a record suspension (formerly called a pardon) is later granted by the Parole Board of Canada. Because section 170 is a serious indictable sexual offence, the waiting period before applying for a record suspension is longer than for less serious crimes. In general, a person convicted of this offence becomes eligible to apply for a record suspension 10 years after the completion of the entire sentence, including any term of imprisonment, probation, and payment of fines or surcharges. Eligibility does not guarantee approval: the Board will assess factors such as the person’s behavior since the offence, any subsequent criminal involvement, and the continuing impact on public safety and confidence in the justice system. Sexual offences against minors are subject to stricter scrutiny, and some such offences are ineligible for record suspensions under current law. Anyone considering an application should review the latest Parole Board guidelines or seek legal advice to confirm how current legislation applies to a section 170 conviction.
Related Violations
- Invitation to Sexual Touching
- Sexual Exploitation
- Aggravated Sexual Assault
These related offences often overlap factually with charges under section 170 and may be laid in combination, depending on the specific conduct alleged. Understanding how they interact helps provide a fuller picture of Canada’s comprehensive legal framework for child protection and sexual offences.
