Yes, but she was a close family friend who the parent(s) invited into their home socially and left in charge of the kid while they were in bed. I think the position of trust and authority in Ontario can extend to family friends left in charge of minors in the family home.
Teacher who had sex with boy, 15, spared jail after judge says: He touched you first
- Thread starter alexmst
- Start date
Yes, but she was a close family friend who the parent(s) invited into their home socially and left in charge of the kid while they were in bed. I think the position of trust and authority in Ontario can extend to family friends left in charge of minors in the family home.
Hmm, that might be true in Canada. It would not be true of the escalation statutes I have worked with. One could attempt to apply the teacher standard to a baby sitter, but it would be a stretch and if this case had been where I am would almost certainly not been successfuly applied.Yes, but she was a close family friend who the parent(s) invited into their home socially and left in charge of the kid while they were in bed. I think the position of trust and authority in Ontario can extend to family friends left in charge of minors in the family home.
I am not arguing that what she did was right and yes it was a betrayal of trust, but I do believe that the Judge handed down an appropriate sentence.
I adore you Aardvark.. however I do not agree with you at all.. if this was a man and a 15 year old girl.. I can assure you that the opinions would be much different..Hmm, that might be true in Canada. It would not be true of the escalation statutes I have worked with. One could attempt to apply the teacher standard to a baby sitter, but it would be a stretch and if this case had been where I am would almost certainly not been successfuly applied.
I am not arguing that what she did was right, but I do believe that the Judge handed down the correct sentence.
it was a disgusting thing this woman did. I do not give a shit if this boy wanted it .. there are lines that one does not cross.. and this is just one of those lines . the punishment in no way fits the crime.. put her in jail . just the same as a man would be put in jail.. let women of her own age deal with her.. this woman makes me sick .. and so does any Adult who abuses their trust and postion over a child.. all child molesters should be put in jail..
Yes, I agree that the judge gave an appropriate punishment in this one case.Hmm, that might be true in Canada. It would not be true of the escalation statutes I have worked with. One could attempt to apply the teacher standard to a baby sitter, but it would be a stretch and if this case had been where I am would almost certainly not been successfuly applied.
I am not arguing that what she did was right and yes it was a betrayal of trust, but I do believe that the Judge handed down an appropriate sentence.
The issues with age of consent in Canada are complex after the laws were changed in 2008. Prior to 2008 the age of consent was 14.
From the Canadian Justice Department website:
"The age of consent for sexual activity is 16 years. It was raised from 14 years on May 1, 2008 by the Tackling Violent Crime Act.
However, the age of consent is 18 years where the sexual activity "exploits" the young person -- when it involves prostitution, pornography or occurs in a relationship of authority, trust or dependency (e.g., with a teacher, coach or babysitter). Sexual activity can also be considered exploitative based on the nature and circumstances of the relationship, e.g., the young person's age, the age difference between the young person and their partner, how the relationship developed (quickly, secretly, or over the Internet) and how the partner may have controlled or influenced the young person."
The changes were I think largely designed to stop adults in Canada and abroad using Facebook and other online social sites to arrange sex with 14 and 15 year olds. While the age of consent is now 16, for all intents and purposes it is 18 as the law can be applied so broadly that almost any adult who has a relationship with a 16 or 17 year old can run afoul of it if the Crown doesn't like the relationship. While teachers, doctors, police, medics, babysitters, coaches are positions of authority, the rider 'exploitative' can cover any internet-based meeting or any quick hookup that didn't go through a lengthy courtship process of non-sexual dating first. Thus arranged marriages are ok, but meeting on Facebook and then arranging a hookup are not.
In essence, to be safe, 18 is the real age of consent in Canada for adults post-2008. The range of persons considered in authority or exploitative can almost cover anyone the Crown wants it to under the new law. Babysitters and family friends definitely can qualify. Of course the case here is from the UK, but is being discussed on Terb in a largely Canadian post 2008 context.
Dear Lady raven,it was a disgusting thing this woman did. I do not give a shit if this boy wanted it ... this woman makes me sick .. and so does any Adult who abuses their trust and postion over a child.. all child molesters should be put in jail..
I agree with your thoughts on child molestation but how do you know the "child" was harmed ?
Provided she was as sensitive ( as you are with your clients I presume) she could have taught me wonderful lessons and I would no longer have been sexually oppressed and my grades and attitude would have improved tremendously.
And because there are so many people like you who think they know what is good for everyone else and so eager to spew venom at an "Angel of Mercy" (which is what she would have been to me) I would have gone to the gallows denying the affair
It is sexual oppression that you hate should passionately hate not its liberation
Lady R. Please imagine, for a moment, that you're a 15yo boy. You are thinking: I've had the most unbelievably exciting experience of my young life, with my 29yo friend. But I told my aunt about it. Next thing, I find I'm responsible for the complete destruction of my friend - this marvellous person who, far from doing me the slightest harm, gave me this wonderful experience. She has awakened in me such enornous pleasure. For doing what she did to me, she should be enjoying a marvellous rest of her life. I wish I could just be looking back on the experience with a smile, and with fond and grateful memories.it was a disgusting thing this woman did. I do not give a shit if this boy wanted it .. there are lines that one does not cross.. and this is just one of those lines . the punishment in no way fits the crime.. put her in jail . just the same as a man would be put in jail.. let women of her own age deal with her.. this woman makes me sick .. and so does any Adult who abuses their trust and postion over a child.. all child molesters should be put in jail..
But I am responsible for destroying her. How can it have happened that I, I, am the instrument for inflicting such pain on another human being, even my worst enemy? What kind of a world makes me, an ordinary chap, destroy this lovely generous person, who has harmed no-one, and yet lets me, the instrument of her destruction, go free.
Well, Lady R: three questions:
1. Where does it come from, this desire there is in you to see this woman destroyed?
2. What harm do you think has been done to the kid?
3. What do you say to the kid, when he says his conscience will never know a moment's peace for the rest of his life, knowing he is responsible for destroying her?
Lady R. Please imagine, for a moment, that you're a 15yo boy. You are thinking: I've had the most unbelievably exciting experience of my young life, with my 29yo friend. But I told my aunt about it. Next thing, I find I'm responsible for the complete destruction of my friend - this marvellous person who, far from doing me the slightest harm, gave me this wonderful experience. She has awakened in me such enornous pleasure. For doing what she did to me, she should be enjoying a marvellous rest of her life. I wish I could just be looking back on the experience with a smile, and with fond and grateful memories.
But I am responsible for destroying her. How can it have happened that I, I, am the instrument for inflicting such pain on another human being, even my worst enemy? What kind of a world makes me, an ordinary chap, destroy this lovely generous person, who has harmed no-one, and yet lets me, the instrument of her destruction, go free.
Well, Lady R: three questions:
1. Where does it come from, this desire there is in you to see this woman destroyed?
2. What harm do you think has been done to the kid?
3. What do you say to the kid, when he says his conscience will never know a moment's peace for the rest of his life, knowing he is responsible for destroying her?
It is societies oppression and reaction that has harmed this "child"
He is not a six year old !
Ask the "child" if he was harmed !
WTF ! But his opinion does not count! WTF!
Ah ! to live in a society that was truely wise and liberated!
Ladyraven sounds like a Pilgrim fundamentalist ! "The teacher must be a witch ! If she does not sink she is a witch!"
Last edited:
If it were a 30 year old male and the 15 year old boy what would have happened? Or if the 15 year old was a girl and the older person was female?
The argument of "what harm" has been done is not up to the minor child to be decided. The fact is that the childs life has been irrevocably changed and with it all is interpersonal/inter-familial relationships.
I cannot think of or imagine any parent whose plans for their child's life includes being sexually molested by a person in authority, relative or family friend.
This kind of thing will always be in the background, festering, a wedge driven between parent and child impossible to change or ameliorate.
The argument of "what harm" has been done is not up to the minor child to be decided. The fact is that the childs life has been irrevocably changed and with it all is interpersonal/inter-familial relationships.
I cannot think of or imagine any parent whose plans for their child's life includes being sexually molested by a person in authority, relative or family friend.
This kind of thing will always be in the background, festering, a wedge driven between parent and child impossible to change or ameliorate.
she is a adult. He is a boy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
calling me a witch.. nice .. LMFAO..
so it would be perfectly fine for a 30 year old man to have sex with a 15 year old girl..
wow I actually feel sick to my stomache ..
fucking disgusting
Heaven forbid that buttercup or yogaface ever come near a child .
calling me a witch.. nice .. LMFAO..
so it would be perfectly fine for a 30 year old man to have sex with a 15 year old girl..
wow I actually feel sick to my stomache ..
fucking disgusting
Heaven forbid that buttercup or yogaface ever come near a child .
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90c11_e.htm
Child Family Services Act of Ontario
Duty to Report
Duty to report child in need of protection
72. (1) Despite the provisions of any other Act, if a person, including a person who performs professional or official duties with respect to children, has reasonable grounds to suspect one of the following, the person shall forthwith report the suspicion and the information on which it is based to a society:
1. The child has suffered physical harm, inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s,
i. failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, or
ii. pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child.
2. There is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s,
i. failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, or
ii. pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child.
3. The child has been sexually molested or sexually exploited, by the person having charge of the child or by another person where the person having charge of the child knows or should know of the possibility of sexual molestation or sexual exploitation and fails to protect the child.
Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, paragraph 3 is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2008, chapter 21, subsection 3 (1) and the following substituted:
3. The child has been sexually molested or sexually exploited, including by child pornography, by the person having charge of the child or by another person where the person having charge of the child knows or should know of the possibility of sexual molestation or sexual exploitation and fails to protect the child.
See: 2008, c. 21, ss. 3 (1), 6.
4. There is a risk that the child is likely to be sexually molested or sexually exploited as described in paragraph 3.
5. The child requires medical treatment to cure, prevent or alleviate physical harm or suffering and the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to, the treatment.
6. The child has suffered emotional harm, demonstrated by serious,
i. anxiety,
ii. depression,
iii. withdrawal,
iv. self-destructive or aggressive behaviour, or
v. delayed development,
and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the emotional harm suffered by the child results from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child.
7. The child has suffered emotional harm of the kind described in subparagraph i, ii, iii, iv or v of paragraph 6 and the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to, services or treatment to remedy or alleviate the harm.
8. There is a risk that the child is likely to suffer emotional harm of the kind described in subparagraph i, ii, iii, iv or v of paragraph 6 resulting from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child.
9. There is a risk that the child is likely to suffer emotional harm of the kind described in subparagraph i, ii, iii, iv or v of paragraph 6 and that the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to, services or treatment to prevent the harm.
10. The child suffers from a mental, emotional or developmental condition that, if not remedied, could seriously impair the child’s development and the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to, treatment to remedy or alleviate the condition.
11. The child has been abandoned, the child’s parent has died or is unavailable to exercise his or her custodial rights over the child and has not made adequate provision for the child’s care and custody, or the child is in a residential placement and the parent refuses or is unable or unwilling to resume the child’s care and custody.
12. The child is less than 12 years old and has killed or seriously injured another person or caused serious damage to another person’s property, services or treatment are necessary to prevent a recurrence and the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to, those services or treatment.
13. The child is less than 12 years old and has on more than one occasion injured another person or caused loss or damage to another person’s property, with the encouragement of the person having charge of the child or because of that person’s failure or inability to supervise the child adequately. 1999, c. 2, s. 22 (1).
Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 72 is amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 2008, chapter 21, subsection 3 (2) by adding the following subsections:
Reporting child pornography
(1.1) In addition to the duty to report under subsection (1), any person who reasonably believes that a representation or material is, or might be, child pornography shall promptly report the information to an organization, agency or person designated by a regulation made under clause 216 (c.3). 2008, c. 21, s. 3 (2).
Seeking out child pornography not required or authorized
(1.2) Nothing in this section requires or authorizes a person to seek out child pornography. 2008, c. 21, s. 3 (2).
Protection of informant
(1.3) No action lies against a person for providing information in good faith in compliance with subsection (1.1). 2008, c. 21, s. 3 (2).
Identity of informant
(1.4) Except as required or permitted in the course of a judicial proceeding, in the context of the provision of child welfare services, otherwise by law or with the written consent of an informant, no person shall disclose,
(a) the identity of an informant under subsection (1) or (1.1),
(i) to the family of the child reported to be in need of protection, or
(ii) to the person who is believed to have caused the child to be in need of protection; or
(b) the identity of an informant under subsection (1.1) to the person who possessed or accessed the representation or material that is or might be child pornography. 2008, c. 21, s. 3 (2).
Retaliation against informant prohibited
(1.5) No person shall dismiss, suspend, demote, discipline, harass, interfere with or otherwise disadvantage an informant under this section. 2008, c. 21, s. 3 (2).
See: 2008, c. 21, ss. 3 (2), 6.
Ongoing duty to report
(2) A person who has additional reasonable grounds to suspect one of the matters set out in subsection (1) shall make a further report under subsection (1) even if he or she has made previous reports with respect to the same child. 1999, c. 2, s. 22 (1).
Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (2) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2008, chapter 21, subsection 3 (3) and the following substituted:
Ongoing duty to report
(2) A person who has additional reasonable grounds to suspect one of the matters set out in subsection (1) or to believe that a representation or material is, or might be, child pornography under subsection (1.1) shall make a further report under subsection (1) or (1.1) even if he or she has made previous reports with respect to the same child. 2008, c. 21, s. 3 (3).
See: 2008, c. 21, ss. 3 (3), 6.
Person must report directly
(3) A person who has a duty to report a matter under subsection (1) or (2) shall make the report directly to the society and shall not rely on any other person to report on his or her behalf. 1999, c. 2, s. 22 (1).
Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (3) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2008, chapter 21, subsection 3 (3) and the following substituted:
Person to report directly
(3) A person who has a duty to report under subsection (1) or (2) shall make the report directly to the society, a person who has a duty to report under subsection (1.1) shall make the report directly to any organization, agency or person designated by regulation to receive such reports, and such persons shall not rely on any other person to report on their behalf. 2008, c. 21, s. 3 (3).
See: 2008, c. 21, ss. 3 (3), 6.
Offence
(4) A person referred to in subsection (5) is guilty of an offence if,
(a) he or she contravenes subsection (1) or (2) by not reporting a suspicion; and
(b) the information on which it was based was obtained in the course of his or her professional or official duties. 1999, c. 2, s. 22 (2).
Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 72 is amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 2008, chapter 21, subsection 3 (4) by adding the following subsections:
Same
(4.1) A person is guilty of an offence if the person fails to report information as required under subsection (1.1). 2008, c. 21, s. 3 (4).
Same
(4.2) A person is guilty of an offence if the person,
(a) discloses the identity of an informant in contravention of subsection (1.4); or
(b) dismisses, suspends, demotes, disciplines, harasses, interferes with or otherwise disadvantages an informant in contravention of subsection (1.5). 2008, c. 21, s. 3 (4).
See: 2008, c. 21, ss. 3 (4), 6.
Same
(5) Subsection (4) applies to every person who performs professional or official duties with respect to children including,
(a) a health care professional, including a physician, nurse, dentist, pharmacist and psychologist;
(b) a teacher, person appointed to a position designated by a board of education as requiring an early childhood educator, school principal, social worker, family counsellor, operator or employee of a day nursery and youth and recreation worker;
(b.1) a religious official, including a priest, a rabbi and a member of the clergy;
(b.2) a mediator and an arbitrator;
(c) a peace officer and a coroner;
(d) a solicitor; and
(e) a service provider and an employee of a service provider. 1999, c. 2, s. 22 (3); 2006, c. 1, s. 2; 2010, c. 10, s. 23.
Same
(6) In clause (5) (b),
“youth and recreation worker” does not include a volunteer. 1999, c. 2, s. 22 (3).Same
(6.1) A director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in a contravention of an offence under subsection (4) by an employee of the corporation is guilty of an offence. 1999, c. 2, s. 22 (3).
Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (6.1) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2008, chapter 21, subsection 3 (5) and the following substituted:
Same
(6.1) A director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in a contravention of an offence under subsection (4) or (4.1) by an employee of the corporation is guilty of an offence. 2008, c. 21, s. 3 (5).
See: 2008, c. 21, ss. 3 (5), 6.
Same
(6.2) A person convicted of an offence under subsection (4) or (6.1) is liable to a fine of not more than $1,000. 1999, c. 2, s. 22 (3).
Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (6.2) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2008, chapter 21, subsection 3 (6) and the following substituted:
Penalty
(6.2) A person convicted of an offence under subsection (4), (4.1), (4.2) or (6.1) is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or to both. 2008, c. 21, s. 3 (6).
See: 2008, c. 21, ss. 3 (6), 6.
Section overrides privilege
(7) This section applies although the information reported may be confidential or privileged, and no action for making the report shall be instituted against a person who acts in accordance with this section unless the person acts maliciously or without reasonable grounds for the suspicion. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 72 (7); 1999, c. 2, s. 22 (4).
Exception: solicitor client privilege
(8) Nothing in this section abrogates any privilege that may exist between a solicitor and his or her client. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 72 (8).
Conflict
(9) This section prevails despite anything in the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004. 2004, c. 3, Sched. A, s. 78 (2).
Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, the Act is amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 2008, chapter 21, section 4 by adding the following section:
Action by organization receiving report of child pornography
72.0.1 (1) An organization, agency or person that obtains information on child pornography under subsection 72 (1.1) shall review the report and, if it reasonably believes that the representation or material is or might be child pornography, it shall report the matter to a society or a law enforcement agency, or to both as necessary. 2008, c. 21, s. 4.
Annual report
(2) The organization, agency or person shall prepare and submit to the Minister an annual report with respect to its activities and actions relating to information it obtains on child pornography, and the Minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and then table the report in the Assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session. 2008, c. 21, s. 4.
See: 2008, c. 21, ss. 4, 6.
Duty of society
72.1(1)A society that obtains information that a child in its care and custody is or may be suffering or may have suffered abuse shall forthwith report the information to a Director.
Definition
(2)In this section and sections 73 and 75,
“to suffer abuse”, when used in reference to a child, means to be in need of protection within the meaning of clause 37 (2) (a), (c), (e), (f), (f.1) or (h). 1999, c. 2, s. 23 (1).
Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 72.1 (2) is amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1999, chapter 2, subsection 23 (2) by striking out “sections 73 and 75” and substituting “section 73”. See: 1999, c. 2, ss. 23 (2), 38.
Child Family Services Act of Ontario
Duty to Report
Duty to report child in need of protection
72. (1) Despite the provisions of any other Act, if a person, including a person who performs professional or official duties with respect to children, has reasonable grounds to suspect one of the following, the person shall forthwith report the suspicion and the information on which it is based to a society:
1. The child has suffered physical harm, inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s,
i. failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, or
ii. pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child.
2. There is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s,
i. failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, or
ii. pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child.
3. The child has been sexually molested or sexually exploited, by the person having charge of the child or by another person where the person having charge of the child knows or should know of the possibility of sexual molestation or sexual exploitation and fails to protect the child.
Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, paragraph 3 is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2008, chapter 21, subsection 3 (1) and the following substituted:
3. The child has been sexually molested or sexually exploited, including by child pornography, by the person having charge of the child or by another person where the person having charge of the child knows or should know of the possibility of sexual molestation or sexual exploitation and fails to protect the child.
See: 2008, c. 21, ss. 3 (1), 6.
4. There is a risk that the child is likely to be sexually molested or sexually exploited as described in paragraph 3.
5. The child requires medical treatment to cure, prevent or alleviate physical harm or suffering and the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to, the treatment.
6. The child has suffered emotional harm, demonstrated by serious,
i. anxiety,
ii. depression,
iii. withdrawal,
iv. self-destructive or aggressive behaviour, or
v. delayed development,
and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the emotional harm suffered by the child results from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child.
7. The child has suffered emotional harm of the kind described in subparagraph i, ii, iii, iv or v of paragraph 6 and the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to, services or treatment to remedy or alleviate the harm.
8. There is a risk that the child is likely to suffer emotional harm of the kind described in subparagraph i, ii, iii, iv or v of paragraph 6 resulting from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child.
9. There is a risk that the child is likely to suffer emotional harm of the kind described in subparagraph i, ii, iii, iv or v of paragraph 6 and that the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to, services or treatment to prevent the harm.
10. The child suffers from a mental, emotional or developmental condition that, if not remedied, could seriously impair the child’s development and the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to, treatment to remedy or alleviate the condition.
11. The child has been abandoned, the child’s parent has died or is unavailable to exercise his or her custodial rights over the child and has not made adequate provision for the child’s care and custody, or the child is in a residential placement and the parent refuses or is unable or unwilling to resume the child’s care and custody.
12. The child is less than 12 years old and has killed or seriously injured another person or caused serious damage to another person’s property, services or treatment are necessary to prevent a recurrence and the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to, those services or treatment.
13. The child is less than 12 years old and has on more than one occasion injured another person or caused loss or damage to another person’s property, with the encouragement of the person having charge of the child or because of that person’s failure or inability to supervise the child adequately. 1999, c. 2, s. 22 (1).
Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 72 is amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 2008, chapter 21, subsection 3 (2) by adding the following subsections:
Reporting child pornography
(1.1) In addition to the duty to report under subsection (1), any person who reasonably believes that a representation or material is, or might be, child pornography shall promptly report the information to an organization, agency or person designated by a regulation made under clause 216 (c.3). 2008, c. 21, s. 3 (2).
Seeking out child pornography not required or authorized
(1.2) Nothing in this section requires or authorizes a person to seek out child pornography. 2008, c. 21, s. 3 (2).
Protection of informant
(1.3) No action lies against a person for providing information in good faith in compliance with subsection (1.1). 2008, c. 21, s. 3 (2).
Identity of informant
(1.4) Except as required or permitted in the course of a judicial proceeding, in the context of the provision of child welfare services, otherwise by law or with the written consent of an informant, no person shall disclose,
(a) the identity of an informant under subsection (1) or (1.1),
(i) to the family of the child reported to be in need of protection, or
(ii) to the person who is believed to have caused the child to be in need of protection; or
(b) the identity of an informant under subsection (1.1) to the person who possessed or accessed the representation or material that is or might be child pornography. 2008, c. 21, s. 3 (2).
Retaliation against informant prohibited
(1.5) No person shall dismiss, suspend, demote, discipline, harass, interfere with or otherwise disadvantage an informant under this section. 2008, c. 21, s. 3 (2).
See: 2008, c. 21, ss. 3 (2), 6.
Ongoing duty to report
(2) A person who has additional reasonable grounds to suspect one of the matters set out in subsection (1) shall make a further report under subsection (1) even if he or she has made previous reports with respect to the same child. 1999, c. 2, s. 22 (1).
Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (2) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2008, chapter 21, subsection 3 (3) and the following substituted:
Ongoing duty to report
(2) A person who has additional reasonable grounds to suspect one of the matters set out in subsection (1) or to believe that a representation or material is, or might be, child pornography under subsection (1.1) shall make a further report under subsection (1) or (1.1) even if he or she has made previous reports with respect to the same child. 2008, c. 21, s. 3 (3).
See: 2008, c. 21, ss. 3 (3), 6.
Person must report directly
(3) A person who has a duty to report a matter under subsection (1) or (2) shall make the report directly to the society and shall not rely on any other person to report on his or her behalf. 1999, c. 2, s. 22 (1).
Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (3) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2008, chapter 21, subsection 3 (3) and the following substituted:
Person to report directly
(3) A person who has a duty to report under subsection (1) or (2) shall make the report directly to the society, a person who has a duty to report under subsection (1.1) shall make the report directly to any organization, agency or person designated by regulation to receive such reports, and such persons shall not rely on any other person to report on their behalf. 2008, c. 21, s. 3 (3).
See: 2008, c. 21, ss. 3 (3), 6.
Offence
(4) A person referred to in subsection (5) is guilty of an offence if,
(a) he or she contravenes subsection (1) or (2) by not reporting a suspicion; and
(b) the information on which it was based was obtained in the course of his or her professional or official duties. 1999, c. 2, s. 22 (2).
Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 72 is amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 2008, chapter 21, subsection 3 (4) by adding the following subsections:
Same
(4.1) A person is guilty of an offence if the person fails to report information as required under subsection (1.1). 2008, c. 21, s. 3 (4).
Same
(4.2) A person is guilty of an offence if the person,
(a) discloses the identity of an informant in contravention of subsection (1.4); or
(b) dismisses, suspends, demotes, disciplines, harasses, interferes with or otherwise disadvantages an informant in contravention of subsection (1.5). 2008, c. 21, s. 3 (4).
See: 2008, c. 21, ss. 3 (4), 6.
Same
(5) Subsection (4) applies to every person who performs professional or official duties with respect to children including,
(a) a health care professional, including a physician, nurse, dentist, pharmacist and psychologist;
(b) a teacher, person appointed to a position designated by a board of education as requiring an early childhood educator, school principal, social worker, family counsellor, operator or employee of a day nursery and youth and recreation worker;
(b.1) a religious official, including a priest, a rabbi and a member of the clergy;
(b.2) a mediator and an arbitrator;
(c) a peace officer and a coroner;
(d) a solicitor; and
(e) a service provider and an employee of a service provider. 1999, c. 2, s. 22 (3); 2006, c. 1, s. 2; 2010, c. 10, s. 23.
Same
(6) In clause (5) (b),
“youth and recreation worker” does not include a volunteer. 1999, c. 2, s. 22 (3).Same
(6.1) A director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in a contravention of an offence under subsection (4) by an employee of the corporation is guilty of an offence. 1999, c. 2, s. 22 (3).
Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (6.1) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2008, chapter 21, subsection 3 (5) and the following substituted:
Same
(6.1) A director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in a contravention of an offence under subsection (4) or (4.1) by an employee of the corporation is guilty of an offence. 2008, c. 21, s. 3 (5).
See: 2008, c. 21, ss. 3 (5), 6.
Same
(6.2) A person convicted of an offence under subsection (4) or (6.1) is liable to a fine of not more than $1,000. 1999, c. 2, s. 22 (3).
Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (6.2) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2008, chapter 21, subsection 3 (6) and the following substituted:
Penalty
(6.2) A person convicted of an offence under subsection (4), (4.1), (4.2) or (6.1) is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or to both. 2008, c. 21, s. 3 (6).
See: 2008, c. 21, ss. 3 (6), 6.
Section overrides privilege
(7) This section applies although the information reported may be confidential or privileged, and no action for making the report shall be instituted against a person who acts in accordance with this section unless the person acts maliciously or without reasonable grounds for the suspicion. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 72 (7); 1999, c. 2, s. 22 (4).
Exception: solicitor client privilege
(8) Nothing in this section abrogates any privilege that may exist between a solicitor and his or her client. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 72 (8).
Conflict
(9) This section prevails despite anything in the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004. 2004, c. 3, Sched. A, s. 78 (2).
Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, the Act is amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 2008, chapter 21, section 4 by adding the following section:
Action by organization receiving report of child pornography
72.0.1 (1) An organization, agency or person that obtains information on child pornography under subsection 72 (1.1) shall review the report and, if it reasonably believes that the representation or material is or might be child pornography, it shall report the matter to a society or a law enforcement agency, or to both as necessary. 2008, c. 21, s. 4.
Annual report
(2) The organization, agency or person shall prepare and submit to the Minister an annual report with respect to its activities and actions relating to information it obtains on child pornography, and the Minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and then table the report in the Assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session. 2008, c. 21, s. 4.
See: 2008, c. 21, ss. 4, 6.
Duty of society
72.1(1)A society that obtains information that a child in its care and custody is or may be suffering or may have suffered abuse shall forthwith report the information to a Director.
Definition
(2)In this section and sections 73 and 75,
“to suffer abuse”, when used in reference to a child, means to be in need of protection within the meaning of clause 37 (2) (a), (c), (e), (f), (f.1) or (h). 1999, c. 2, s. 23 (1).
Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 72.1 (2) is amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1999, chapter 2, subsection 23 (2) by striking out “sections 73 and 75” and substituting “section 73”. See: 1999, c. 2, ss. 23 (2), 38.
What I meant to say is that you are flinging venom at the teacher the same way they accused witches not that you are the witchshe is a adult. He is a boy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
calling me a witch.. nice .. LMFAO..
so it would be perfectly fine for a 30 year old man to have sex with a 15 year old girl..
wow I actually feel sick to my stomache ..
fucking disgusting
Heaven forbid that buttercup or yogaface ever come near a child .
As far as 15 year old females it may be sexist but I would view that in a different tone for I am a male and can relate to a 15 year old male not female and I know at 15 (and well before that age) I would not have considered an affair that I pursued to have been molestation to the contrary I would have considered her an Angel - and utterly resent your implication that I am a molester because I know that your hard headed opinion is severely flawed !
I repeat that I would have considered her an Angel of Mercy but then again in your dictatorial world view it is only your opinion that is valid.
I would ask the 15 year old if he was harmed but no one has. Apparently whether he was actually harmed or not is irrelevant because enough poeple agree with your closed mind that whether or not there was a victim is not important - what is important is that we get to burn a witch !
Age of Consent. Unless you read it, there are a few tricky aspects to consent.
The Tackling Violent Crime Act took effect on 1 May 2008, making the current age of consent 16.[1]
Although Canada is a federation, the criminal law (including the definition of the age of consent) is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, so the age of consent is uniform throughout Canada. Section 151 of the Criminal Code of Canada makes it a crime to touch, for a sexual purpose, any person under the age of 16 years. Section 153 then goes on to prohibit the sexual touching of a person under 18 by a person in three circumstances: if he or she is in a "position of trust or authority" towards the youth, if the youth is in a "relationship of dependency" with him or her or if the relationship is "exploitative". The term "position of trust or authority" is not defined in the Code but the courts have ruled that parents, teachers and medical professionals hold a position of trust or authority towards youth they care for or teach. For determining whether or not a relationship is "exploitative" s. 153 (1.2) of the Code provides that a judge can consider how old the youth is, the difference in ages between the partners, how the relationship evolved and the degree of control or influence that the older partner has over the youth.
Where an accused is charged with an offense under s. 151 (Sexual Interference), s. 152 (Invitation to sexual touching), s. 153(1) (Sexual exploitation), s. 160(3) (Bestiality in presence of or by child), or s. 173(2) (Indecent acts), or is charged with an offense under s. 271 (Sexual assault), s. 272 (Sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party, or causing bodily harm), or s. 273 (Aggravated sexual assault) in respect of a complainant under the age of fourteen years, it is not a defense that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge. {Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, section 150.1 (1), link continuously updated as Act is amended.}
There exist two close in age exemptions, depending on the age of the younger partner. A youth of twelve or thirteen can consent to sexual activity with an individual less than two years older than s/he. A fourteen- or fifteen-year-old can consent to sexual activity with a partner who is less than five years older than s/he, or to whom s/he is married. Neither exception applies if the accused was in a position of trust or authority towards the victim, the victim was in a relationship of dependency with the accused or if the relationship between the accused and victim is found to be exploitative.
Anal intercourse
Additionally, section 159 of the Criminal Code sets the age of consent for anal intercourse at 18 years, with an exception if the two partners are married. It is interesting to note that in this section has 'husband and wife' - Even though gender-neutral marriages are legal since 2005.
However, courts in Ontario (1995) and Quebec (1998) have independently declared Section 159 of the Criminal Code of Canada (Anal Intercourse) unconstitutional.
Anal sex legislation from the Federal Canadian Criminal Code; Criminal Code;
PART V: SEXUAL OFFENCES, PUBLIC MORALS AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT Sexual Offences Anal intercourse 159. (1) Every person who engages in an act of anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Exception (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any act engaged in, in private, between
(a) husband and wife, or
(b) any two persons, each of whom is eighteen years of age or more,
both of whom consent to the act.
Idem (3) For the purposes of subsection (2),
(a) an act shall be deemed not to have been engaged in in private if it is engaged in in a public place or if more than two persons take part or are present; and
(b) a person shall be deemed not to consent to an act
(i) if the consent is extorted by force, threats or fear of bodily harm or is obtained by false and fraudulent misrepresentations respecting the nature and quality of the act, or
(ii) if the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the person could not have consented to the act by reason of mental disability.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 159; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 3.
16
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_age_of_sexual_consent_in_Ontario_Canada#ixzz1FxjKiuf4
The Tackling Violent Crime Act took effect on 1 May 2008, making the current age of consent 16.[1]
Although Canada is a federation, the criminal law (including the definition of the age of consent) is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, so the age of consent is uniform throughout Canada. Section 151 of the Criminal Code of Canada makes it a crime to touch, for a sexual purpose, any person under the age of 16 years. Section 153 then goes on to prohibit the sexual touching of a person under 18 by a person in three circumstances: if he or she is in a "position of trust or authority" towards the youth, if the youth is in a "relationship of dependency" with him or her or if the relationship is "exploitative". The term "position of trust or authority" is not defined in the Code but the courts have ruled that parents, teachers and medical professionals hold a position of trust or authority towards youth they care for or teach. For determining whether or not a relationship is "exploitative" s. 153 (1.2) of the Code provides that a judge can consider how old the youth is, the difference in ages between the partners, how the relationship evolved and the degree of control or influence that the older partner has over the youth.
Where an accused is charged with an offense under s. 151 (Sexual Interference), s. 152 (Invitation to sexual touching), s. 153(1) (Sexual exploitation), s. 160(3) (Bestiality in presence of or by child), or s. 173(2) (Indecent acts), or is charged with an offense under s. 271 (Sexual assault), s. 272 (Sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party, or causing bodily harm), or s. 273 (Aggravated sexual assault) in respect of a complainant under the age of fourteen years, it is not a defense that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge. {Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, section 150.1 (1), link continuously updated as Act is amended.}
There exist two close in age exemptions, depending on the age of the younger partner. A youth of twelve or thirteen can consent to sexual activity with an individual less than two years older than s/he. A fourteen- or fifteen-year-old can consent to sexual activity with a partner who is less than five years older than s/he, or to whom s/he is married. Neither exception applies if the accused was in a position of trust or authority towards the victim, the victim was in a relationship of dependency with the accused or if the relationship between the accused and victim is found to be exploitative.
Anal intercourse
Additionally, section 159 of the Criminal Code sets the age of consent for anal intercourse at 18 years, with an exception if the two partners are married. It is interesting to note that in this section has 'husband and wife' - Even though gender-neutral marriages are legal since 2005.
However, courts in Ontario (1995) and Quebec (1998) have independently declared Section 159 of the Criminal Code of Canada (Anal Intercourse) unconstitutional.
Anal sex legislation from the Federal Canadian Criminal Code; Criminal Code;
PART V: SEXUAL OFFENCES, PUBLIC MORALS AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT Sexual Offences Anal intercourse 159. (1) Every person who engages in an act of anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Exception (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any act engaged in, in private, between
(a) husband and wife, or
(b) any two persons, each of whom is eighteen years of age or more,
both of whom consent to the act.
Idem (3) For the purposes of subsection (2),
(a) an act shall be deemed not to have been engaged in in private if it is engaged in in a public place or if more than two persons take part or are present; and
(b) a person shall be deemed not to consent to an act
(i) if the consent is extorted by force, threats or fear of bodily harm or is obtained by false and fraudulent misrepresentations respecting the nature and quality of the act, or
(ii) if the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the person could not have consented to the act by reason of mental disability.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 159; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 3.
16
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_age_of_sexual_consent_in_Ontario_Canada#ixzz1FxjKiuf4
You have just indicated why there should be a limit to the expectation that the term female and male can be freely swapped - particularly in the younger development years. I will take your word as a female that 15 year old girls are more gullible and easier to sustain emotional trauma if they have sex with any older guys or maybe any guys at all.she is a adult. He is a boy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
......so it would be perfectly fine for a 30 year old man to have sex with a 15 year old girl...
Now as a male who was sexually active at 15, let me tell you that there is not any short or long term problems with sexual relations with a 30 year old woman. And to equate me as a 'child' at that age is just ludicrous as I had all the equipment and a huge sex drive that made me a danger to all the innocent 15 year old girls that shared the same school.
Since I was not aware of how emotionally immature 15 year old female classmates were at that time, I obviously should have had more access to mature women (teachers, hookers, etc). This could have saved the 15 year old girls (children) so that they are not heartbroken or sexually traumatized - at least not until their wedding night.
How dare you disagree about what your needs were when we have experts like Ladyraven telling you what would have been good for you ! !You have just indicated why there should be a limit to the expectation that the term female and male can be freely swapped - particularly in the younger development years. I will take your word as a female that 15 year old girls are more gullible and easier to sustain emotional trauma if they have sex with any older guys or maybe any guys at all.
Now as a male who was sexually active at 15, let me tell you that there is not any short or long term problems with sexual relations with a 30 year old woman. And to equate me as a 'child' at that age is just ludicrous as I had all the equipment and a huge sex drive that made me a danger to all the innocent 15 year old girls that shared the same school.
Since I was not aware of how emotionally immature 15 year old female classmates were at that time, I obviously should have had more access to mature women (teachers, hookers, etc). This could have saved the 15 year old girls (children) so that they are not heartbroken or sexually traumatized - at least not until their wedding night.
Unfortunately, truth is irrelevant when it comes to burning witches
I do not wish to put words in her mouth but I suspect Ladyraven can only see the females POV which is understandable as she is female and has lost her objectivity ( which is the first thing that goes when on a witch hunt )
It is illegal. End of story. The law is there to protect children from predators, not to only be invoked if some minor says 'no biggie'. .
Not end of story. A lot of laws were and have been wrong
This may be a very valid pointthe Council notes that an "alarmingly high rate" of male rapists report having been sexually assaulted by females.
A proper, unbiased scientific study needs to be done not the irrational burning of witches
That " high rate of male rapists report" is hardly scientific
Oh yeah. this so called study never mentions that a lot of the "victims" said they actually benefited from the affair WHY ????
Because when you have made your mind up to burn a witch any evidence that does not support your witch burning POV is not allowed !
They should give you absolute power to end the thread .. I mean 'Done' ... 'End of Story'.... It is illegal. End of story. Conclusion: . ...... Done.
I love these conclusive facts that are always phrased to build up an small number into an ominous figure just to carry a point. An alarming high rate of male rapists were assaulted by females. First what % of the male population are rapists ? Of that - what fraction of that small % were assaulted by a female ? Of that smaller % - how many were sexually active 15 year olds that were 'assaulted' by an older female ?
So you throw away the key because there is an almost infinitesimal chance the active 15 year old will become a rapist ??? Maybe they should throw away the key on anyone driving a car because there is a better chance that they will injure some one in a car accident.
Done - Finished - Kaput - 'That's All Folks !!!!
I think the judge looked at the intent of the law. It was to protect minors (under 16) from being sexually exploited.
But in this case, he reasoned that since the 15 year old (but sexually-experienced) boy seduced a drunken adult woman, the full severity of the ordinary punishment shouldn't apply.
In other words, there were mitigating circumstances.
Judges get paid to interpret laws and apply them as best as possible to fact situations. They are attempting to administer justice which means a fair application of the law and not necessarily the letter of the law.
But in this case, he reasoned that since the 15 year old (but sexually-experienced) boy seduced a drunken adult woman, the full severity of the ordinary punishment shouldn't apply.
In other words, there were mitigating circumstances.
Judges get paid to interpret laws and apply them as best as possible to fact situations. They are attempting to administer justice which means a fair application of the law and not necessarily the letter of the law.
I know what I wrote earlier, however I have a 14yo daughter and it might be OK to make light of this but I can tell you If it was reversed ( sp ) and that was a guy trying that shit with my 14 yo daughter I can assure you that I wouldn't take it so lightly
The criminal code also states , and I think everyone has over look this, it's called Sexual Interference if the age difference is 5 years or more it's also called explotation ( sp? ) so as much as us guys are making fun of this and wishing that it would of happened to us when we were 15, I agree with Lady Raven, it's still a crime and if a guy were to do this he would be punished to the full extent of the law......so why not her?
The criminal code also states , and I think everyone has over look this, it's called Sexual Interference if the age difference is 5 years or more it's also called explotation ( sp? ) so as much as us guys are making fun of this and wishing that it would of happened to us when we were 15, I agree with Lady Raven, it's still a crime and if a guy were to do this he would be punished to the full extent of the law......so why not her?
