I am unaware of any cases where people would be prosecuted for "depiction". Prosecuting for that, as worded in a current version of the Code*, seems fucked up on more than one level. I would think that should any case of that nature, i.e. with adult actresses, hit the system, a constitutional challenge will be brought...and following that line of thought, by reading the legal disclaimer at the bottom of the page and making sure it was present, would that constitute"reasonable" diligence in ascertaining a websites validity that it did not contain imagery or videos of underage persons?I have yet to be on a porn site that did not features babysitter/schoolgirl/mother daughter/father daughter porn ,(simulated of course)porn.Most of the vids actually state as part of the dialogue that the participants are 18 years of age.
*
(5) It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (2) in respect of a visual representation that the accused believed that a person shown in the representation that is alleged to constitute child pornography was or was depicted as being eighteen years of age or more unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of that person and took all reasonable steps to ensure that, where the person was eighteen years of age or more, the representation did not depict that person as being under the age of eighteen years.