Toronto Invitation to Sexual Touching Lawyer (Section 152)

Home › Criminal Defence › Toronto Invitation to Sexual Touching

A section 152 charge alleges an invitation, not a touching. The Criminal Code makes it an offence to invite, counsel or incite a person under 16 to sexual touching, which means a prosecution can rest entirely on words that were allegedly spoken, typed or sent. People are often stunned to learn that no contact needs to be alleged at all. If you are facing this charge in Toronto, hold on to two facts: the allegation is serious, and you are presumed innocent of it. Kazandji Law defends section 152 cases with discretion, senior attention and respect for every person involved. Your consultation is free and confidential.

By Fadi Matthew Kazandji, Founding Partner, Kazandji Law. Updated July 2026.

"But I never touched anyone." Why the charge exists anyway

Section 152 of the Criminal Code reads, in substance, like this: every person who, for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a person under the age of 16 to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, commits an offence. The section spells out that the body being touched can be the body of the person who did the inviting, the body of the young person themselves, or the body of anyone else.

Read that again and notice what is missing. There is no requirement that any touching happened. There is no requirement that the young person agreed, responded, or even understood. There is no requirement of a meeting, a plan or a follow-up. The offence is complete, in law, the moment an invitation, counselling or incitement is made for a sexual purpose to a person under 16.

That is why people charged under section 152 so often tell us the same thing in the first meeting: nothing happened. They are describing the facts accurately, and it does not end the case. Parliament drafted this offence to reach conduct at the invitation stage, before anything physical occurs.

But the same drafting choice cuts the other way, and this is where the defence work begins. Because the entire offence lives in words and purpose, the entire prosecution lives there too. The Crown must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that specific words or conduct amounted to an invitation, counselling or incitement, that they were directed at a person under 16, and that they were made for a sexual purpose. Each of those elements can be challenged. What exactly was said? Who says so, and how reliable is that account? What did the words mean in their full context? Was the purpose sexual at all?

This page walks through the statutory language one phrase at a time, because that is how these cases are actually fought. Through all of it, one principle holds: you are presumed innocent, and the burden never shifts to you.

What does "for a sexual purpose" actually mean?

The first phrase the Crown must prove is purpose. An invitation to touch is only an offence under section 152 if it was made for a sexual purpose, and purpose is not presumed. It has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt, like every other element.

Context decides almost everything here. Courts look at the words themselves, the setting in which they were said or sent, the relationship between the people involved, and what surrounded the exchange. The same sentence can carry a completely different character depending on whether it appears in a taunt between classmates, a stray line in a long group chat, a message pulled out of a thread, or something else entirely.

That matters because real communication is messy. Jokes land badly. Sarcasm reads literally on a screen. Dares and provocations get typed in seconds and screenshotted forever. A message can be forwarded without the three that came before it and take on a meaning it never had. When an allegation rests on an isolated remark or a fragment of a conversation, the sexual purpose element is often the natural place where reasonable doubt lives.

We approach this element carefully and respectfully. Challenging purpose is not about attacking the young person or minimizing what they experienced. It is about insisting that the Crown prove what the law requires it to prove: not that words were awkward, crude or ill judged, but that they amounted to an invitation to sexual touching made for a sexual purpose.

In practice, that means the defence gathers the complete record early. Full message threads rather than excerpts. The platform context. The history between the parties. Anything that shows how the words would genuinely have been understood at the time, rather than how they read in a police summary months later.

Invites, counsels or incites: three verbs doing different work

The second phrase is the conduct element. Parliament used three verbs, and each captures something different. An invitation is a request or a proposal. Counselling suggests recommending or encouraging a course of conduct. Incitement reaches urging, prodding or stirring someone toward it. Together they cover a wide field, from an explicit ask to sustained encouragement.

The section is also specific about whose body the invited touching may involve. It expressly covers inviting a young person to touch the body of the person making the invitation, the young person's own body, or the body of any other person. The touching contemplated can be direct or indirect, with a part of the body or with an object.

Two practical consequences follow. First, the Crown must point to something concrete: identifiable words or conduct that it says crossed the line from talk into invitation, counselling or incitement. Vague evidence that a conversation felt inappropriate does not satisfy the element. The defence pushes hard on this precision. What is the exact communication relied on? When was it made? How was it recorded or remembered?

Second, whether one message or a course of conduct is alleged changes the shape of the case. A single disputed remark stands or falls on credibility, reliability and interpretation. A pattern allegation raises different questions: are the incidents accurately dated and described, has repetition been inferred rather than remembered, and does each alleged instance actually meet the legal definition on its own?

Attribution can be its own battleground where the allegation is digital. Shared devices, logged-in accounts on family tablets, group chats, and messages sent under another person's name all appear in real files. Proving that particular words were typed by a particular person, beyond a reasonable doubt, is not a formality, and we never treat it as one.

The age element, and how section 152 sits beside its neighbours

The third phrase is the age element: the person invited must have been under 16 at the time. Section 152 protects a defined group, and the complainant's actual age is a fact the Crown must establish.

Age also determines which section of the Code applies at all, and charges in this family are frequently laid together or adjusted as a file develops. It helps to see the neighbours side by side.

Charge	Who it protects	What is alleged	Maximum on indictment
Sexual interference (s. 151)	Under 16	Sexual touching of the young person	14 years
Invitation to sexual touching (s. 152)	Under 16	Inviting, counselling or inciting sexual touching	14 years
Sexual exploitation (s. 153)	16 and 17 year olds	Touching or invitation within a relationship of trust, authority, dependency or exploitation	14 years
Child luring (s. 172.1)	Under 18, 16 or 14, depending on the tier	Telecommunication for the purpose of facilitating a listed offence	14 years

One distinction matters enormously in online files. Section 152 requires a person who was actually under 16. Where the other side of a conversation was an undercover officer, or where the Crown's theory rests on what the accused believed about age rather than the true age, the charge that fits is usually child luring under section 172.1, which expressly extends to a person the accused believes is underage. Our Toronto internet luring lawyers page covers that offence, including sting operations and the digital evidence issues that come with them.

Where the complainant was 16 or 17 and the allegation turns on a relationship of trust or authority, the charge is sexual exploitation rather than invitation to sexual touching; our Toronto sexual exploitation lawyers page walks through section 153. And where actual touching of a person under 16 is alleged, sexual interference under section 151 typically appears alongside or instead of section 152; our sexual interference defence page covers that offence in depth.

Getting the right section identified early is not an academic exercise. It controls the available defences, the evidence rules, the sentencing exposure and the registry consequences that follow.

Consent is off the table, with two precise exceptions

Here is the rule that surprises families most. Under section 150.1(1) of the Criminal Code, it is not a defence to a section 152 charge that the complainant consented to the activity. Parliament has decided that people under 16 cannot legally consent to this conduct, so evidence of agreement, initiation or enthusiasm from the young person does not answer the charge.

There are exactly two exceptions, and they are narrow, age banded and conditional.

• Where the complainant was 12 or 13, consent can be a defence only if the accused was less than two years older than the complainant.
• Where the complainant was 14 or 15, consent can be a defence only if the accused was less than five years older.

In both bands, the exception applies only if the accused was not in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant, was not a person with whom the complainant was in a relationship of dependency, and was not in a relationship with the complainant that was exploitative of the complainant.

These bands exist because Parliament recognized that teenagers close in age form relationships, and the criminal law is not aimed at a 15 year old and a 17 year old in an ordinary peer relationship. In Toronto files involving teenagers, the close-in-age math, counted precisely from birth dates, can decide whether a viable charge exists at all.

Two related rules round out the scheme. A person aged 12 or 13 cannot be tried for this offence at all unless they were in a position of trust, authority, dependency or exploitation toward the complainant. And where the accused is under 18, the case proceeds in youth court under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, with its own protections, procedures and sentencing principles. Families dealing with a peer-aged allegation should get youth-specific advice early.

"I thought they were older." What the law actually requires

A belief that the complainant was 16 or older can be a defence, but the Code attaches a strict condition. Under section 150.1(4), the belief helps only if the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age. An honest but passive assumption is not enough; the law asks what you actually did, asked, saw and were told.

The Supreme Court of Canada dealt with this framework in R. v. George (2017). The trial judge in that case had acquitted, finding the activity factually consensual, the belief about age honest, and the Crown's evidence insufficient to prove a failure to take all reasonable steps. The Supreme Court restored those acquittals after an appeal court had set them aside. The practical point for anyone facing a charge is the burden: once the mistake-of-age defence is realistically in play on the evidence, the Crown must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence does not have to prove the steps were perfect.

What counts as reasonable steps is fact driven. Courts look at everything available at the time: what the person said about their age, how they appeared, the setting where the parties met, what mutual acquaintances knew, what identification or online profiles showed, and whether anything should have prompted more questions. Steps that are reasonable in one context can be inadequate in another.

One more wrinkle matters for the close-in-age bands discussed above. An accused cannot rely on a mistaken belief about the complainant's age to bring themselves within those exceptions unless, again, all reasonable steps were taken. Section 150.1(6) closes that door on assumption.

In our experience these defences are built, not found. Screenshots of profiles, message histories where age was discussed, witness accounts of what was commonly believed, and a precise timeline all matter, and they need to be preserved before accounts disappear.

The evidence rules that shape a section 152 trial

Sexual offence trials run under a distinct set of evidence rules, and by statute those rules apply to section 152 proceedings.

The first is section 276, often called the rape shield provision. It bars evidence of a complainant's other sexual activity when offered to support two forbidden inferences: that the complainant was more likely to have consented, or that they are less worthy of belief. The section also confirms that, for these purposes, sexual activity includes communications made for a sexual purpose or whose content is sexual. In a words-based prosecution, that rule has teeth. Texts and direct messages the defence may consider central can require a formal application and judicial screening before they can be used, and screenshots of the complainant's other conversations are not simply fair game.

The second regime covers records relating to the complainant that are in the accused's possession, with medical notes, counselling records, journals and private digital material among them. Under sections 278.92 to 278.94, using such records at trial requires a written application decided at a hearing where the complainant has standing and may appear with their own counsel. The Supreme Court upheld this scheme in R. v. J.J. (2022), so it is the operating reality in every Ontario courtroom.

None of this means the defence is boxed in. It means the defence must be built early and in writing. Applications have deadlines and legal thresholds. Evidence that would genuinely assist, a thread showing the true context of an exchange, for example, may be entirely admissible, but only if the application is framed properly and brought on time.

This is one of the quiet ways experienced counsel changes outcomes in section 152 files. The trial is often decided in the pre-trial motions, before a single witness is sworn.

Penalties: what the Code prints and what courts have said about it

Section 152 is a hybrid offence, which means the Crown chooses the route.

Route	Maximum sentence	Minimum printed in the Code
Indictment	14 years	One year
Summary conviction	Two years less a day	90 days

The election matters well beyond the maximum. It affects whether a preliminary inquiry is available, which court tries the case, and how long registry obligations run if there is a conviction.

On the other side of the ledger sits R. v. Friesen (2020), where the Supreme Court of Canada directed that sentences for sexual offences against children must increase to reflect the harm they cause. Ontario courts apply that direction daily. So the honest picture for anyone charged is this: the constitutional litigation around minimums has changed the floor in some situations, and it has not softened the ceiling or the climate. A conviction under section 152 exposes a person to a substantial range on indictment, and sentencing submissions need to be prepared with the same rigour as the trial itself.

That is not written to alarm you. It is written because realistic information, delivered early, is what lets people make sound decisions about defence strategy, resolution discussions and everything in between.

The consequences beyond sentence, planned for from day one

A section 152 finding of guilt carries statutory consequences that operate alongside any sentence. Good defence planning accounts for them from the first meeting, because they often matter more to a person's future than the sentence itself.

The sex offender registry. Section 152 is a primary offence under the federal Sex Offender Information Registration Act scheme. A registration order is mandatory in defined circumstances, including where the Crown proceeded by indictment, the sentence is two years or more and the victim is under 18, and it is presumptive in other cases unless strict statutory exceptions are established by the person. Registration typically runs 20 years following an indictable conviction and 10 years following a summary one. Ontario also maintains its own registry under Christopher's Law, which is separate from the federal scheme.

Section 161 prohibition orders. Where the offence involves a person under 16, the sentencing court must consider an order that can prohibit attending public parks and swimming areas where young people are present or reasonably expected, along with daycares, schoolgrounds, playgrounds and community centres; taking paid or volunteer positions of trust or authority over people under 16; contacting anyone under 16 without court-approved supervision; and using the internet except on court-set conditions. Orders can run for any period up to life, and they can be varied later on changed circumstances.

The publication ban. A section 486.4 ban protecting the complainant's identity is available in section 152 proceedings and is mandatory when requested by the complainant or the Crown. It protects the complainant, not the accused; an adult accused's name can generally be published.

Other ancillary orders, and the practical fallout for employment, volunteering and travel, get assessed on your specific facts. The point is simple: these consequences are foreseeable, so they should be planned for, argued about and, where the law allows, avoided, not discovered after the fact.

Where a Toronto section 152 case actually goes

Investigation. Allegations of in-person invitations are investigated by Toronto Police Service investigators, including the Sex Crimes unit; where the alleged invitation happened online, the Child Exploitation Section may carry the file, and overlap with child luring under section 172.1 becomes a live charging question. If police contact you, you have the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, and both matter enormously at this stage. Do not try to explain the situation away in an interview room.

Bail. All Toronto adult bail hearings, including weekend and holiday courts, run through the Toronto Regional Bail Centre at 2201 Finch Avenue West. Conditions in section 152 files commonly include no contact with the complainant and restrictions around places where people under 16 gather. Conditions must be reasonable and connected to the allegation; overbroad terms can be negotiated at the hearing or varied afterward. Our Toronto bail lawyers page explains how release planning works and why arriving with a plan changes results.

The Ontario Court of Justice. Criminal appearances proceed at 10 Armoury Street. Disclosure review, Crown pre-trials and judicial pre-trials happen here, and summary matters stay here through trial.

Election and the Superior Court. Because the indictable maximum is 14 years, a person charged by indictment can elect trial in the Superior Court of Justice at 361 University Avenue, with a preliminary inquiry available on request. Whether to elect up is a strategic decision that depends on the evidence, the issues and the timeline, and it deserves a deliberate discussion rather than a default.

Our Toronto office at 180 John Street, Unit 320 is minutes from both courthouses, which matters more often than people expect.

How we defend section 152 allegations, with care

Every strong defence in this area shares two features: it is rigorous, and it is respectful. Those are not in tension.

Rigour means the complete investigative file gets dissected. The exact words relied on, in full context rather than excerpt. The forensic path of every message: who wrote it, on what device, in what thread, and how it was preserved. The interviews: how the allegation emerged, who was present, what questions were asked, and whether the account evolved. The elements: purpose, conduct and age, and where it arises, the close-in-age arithmetic and the reasonable steps evidence. The Charter issues: device seizures and searches, statements taken from you, and delay.

Respect means the complainant is treated with dignity throughout. Cross-examination in our files is precise, not punishing. We do not advance victim-blaming theories, and we do not need to. The burden of proof and the statutory elements give the defence everything it requires when the evidence does not hold together.

Some cases resolve. Where the evidence is strong, a client's instructions may point toward negotiating the route, the charge or the sentence, and the consequences described above, the registry, section 161 terms and the record itself, become the battleground. Where the evidence does not survive scrutiny, we run trials, and we prepare every file as if it will be one. You can read about how we have handled serious allegations for other clients on our results page.

What you should do now is short: say nothing about the allegation to police or anyone else, preserve every account and message, and get counsel involved before decisions get made for you.

Why Kazandji Law

Kazandji Law is a criminal defence firm built around senior counsel attention. Fadi Matthew Kazandji, the firm's founding partner, personally leads defence strategy on sexual offence files, and clients deal with their lawyer rather than a rotating cast.

We defend section 152 allegations across Toronto and the GTA from four offices: our Toronto headquarters at 180 John Street, Unit 320, minutes from the 10 Armoury Street and 361 University Avenue courthouses; Thornhill at 7191 Yonge Street, Suite 310, serving Markham and York Region; North York; and Oakville. Consultations are free, confidential and available quickly, because in these files the early hours matter.

Discretion is a feature of how we work. Meetings can be arranged privately, communication runs through channels you choose, and we plan around employment and family realities from the first conversation. Interpreters are arranged where needed. Section 152 is one of many offences we defend; our criminal defence hub outlines the full practice.

Toronto invitation to sexual touching FAQ

This page provides general information about Canadian criminal law for people facing or researching charges in Ontario. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create a lawyer and client relationship with Kazandji Law. The law summarized here, including Criminal Code provisions, penalties and case law, changes over time and is applied to specific facts in every case. Speak with a qualified criminal defence lawyer about your own situation before making decisions. If you have been charged, contact counsel promptly.