The applicant, Gary Phillip Allen, challenged the constitutionality of subsections 171.1(3)-(4) and 172.1(3)-(4) of the Criminal Code, which pertain to internet luring and making explicit material available to a child.
The applicant argued these provisions violated sections 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by creating a reverse onus and reducing the constitutionally required mens rea.
The court dismissed the application, finding the impugned provisions constitutionally valid.
The court held that these provisions impose an evidential burden, not a persuasive one, and are akin to a due diligence inquiry, consistent with prior appellate and Supreme Court jurisprudence on similar "reasonable steps" provisions.
