The Criminal Code has evolved significantly over the past two decades to address sexual offences that take place primarily or entirely online. This page provides an overview of several distinct offences in this area: child luring, non-consensual distribution of intimate images, the newer offence of threatening to share intimate images (often called sextortion), and voyeurism. It is general legal information, not legal advice about a specific case.
Child Luring
Section 172.1 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to communicate with a person under 16, using a computer system such as the internet, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against them. This offence is complete once the communication with the required purpose occurs; no in-person meeting or actual sexual contact needs to take place. It is a hybrid offence, carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years on indictment or 2 years less a day on summary conviction, with a mandatory minimum of 1 year on indictment or 6 months on summary conviction. The Supreme Court of Canada found this mandatory minimum unconstitutional in R. v. Bertrand Marchand (2023), and it was restored, with a narrow judicial safety valve, by the Protecting Victims Act in 2026, discussed further below.
Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Images
Section 162.1 makes it an offence to knowingly publish, distribute, transmit, sell, make available, or advertise an intimate image of a person, knowing that the person did not consent, or being reckless as to whether they consented. This offence is commonly known as the "revenge porn" law, though it applies regardless of the motivation behind sharing the image. It is a hybrid offence with a maximum penalty of 5 years on indictment.
Sextortion and Deepfakes: The 2026 Changes
In June 2026, Parliament's Protecting Victims Act (Bill C-16) made two significant changes in this area, effective July 2026. First, it created a new offence covering threats to share intimate images, even where no image is ever actually distributed: knowingly threatening to publish, distribute, or make available an intimate image of a person, with the intent to intimidate that person or to be taken seriously, without their consent. This addresses "sextortion," where a person is threatened with the release of intimate images, often to extort money or further images. Second, the legislation expanded the definition of "intimate image" to explicitly include deepfakes: images created by electronic or mechanical means, including through artificial intelligence, that depict an identifiable person nude or engaged in sexual activity, where the image is likely to be mistaken for a genuine recording of that person. Reported penalties include up to 5 years for distribution and up to 2 years for possession or creation of such material with intent to share it.
Because these changes are very recent, taking effect in July 2026, the case law interpreting them is still developing. Anyone facing a charge connected to intimate images, whether real or computer-generated, should get advice from a criminal lawyer who is current on this fast-moving area of law.
Voyeurism
Section 162 makes it an offence to surreptitiously observe or make a visual recording of a person in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, in specific situations set out in the Criminal Code, such as where the person is nude, exposing specific body parts, or engaged in sexual activity, or where the observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose. A related provision addresses printing, publishing, or distributing a recording known to have been obtained through voyeurism. This is a hybrid offence with a maximum penalty of 5 years on indictment.
How These Offences Relate to Each Other
These offences frequently overlap in a single course of conduct. A person might be charged with child luring for online communication, then with sexual interference or invitation to sexual touching if the communication leads to further conduct, and separately with an intimate images offence if images were shared or threatened during the same interaction. Where the material involved depicts a person under 18, additional and more serious charges under our child pornography offences page may also apply.
Anyone who receives a sextortion threat should know that reporting it to police does not require admitting to anything embarrassing or illegal on their own part, and that paying an extortionist rarely stops the threats from continuing. Preserving the messages and contacting police promptly is generally the safest response.
Possible Defences
Defences in this area often focus on the specific digital evidence involved, including whether the Crown can prove the accused was actually the person behind a given account or communication, whether the required purpose or intent can be established from the content of messages, and, for image-based offences, whether the person depicted can be shown not to have consented, or whether the accused reasonably believed they had consent. Given how technical these cases can be, involving digital forensics and platform records, a criminal lawyer experienced in this area should review the full disclosure before advising on possible defences.
What Happens After This Charge
A person charged with any of these offences is likely to face a contested bail hearing, with conditions commonly including restrictions on internet and device use. The case then proceeds through the standard court process, including disclosure of digital evidence, which can be extensive, before moving toward a resolution or a trial. See our sentencing overview and criminal records overview for more, including information relevant to sex offender registration requirements.
Investigations into internet-related sexual offences frequently involve specialized police units with expertise in digital forensics, and cases can take considerable time to reach a charge given the technical work involved in tracing accounts, preserving platform data through production orders, and analyzing devices. This means a person may become aware of an investigation well before any charge is actually laid.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is threatening to share someone's intimate images a crime, even if I never actually share them?
Yes, as of July 2026. The Protecting Victims Act created a specific offence covering threats to share an intimate image without consent, even where the image is never actually distributed.
Do AI-generated or "deepfake" images count as intimate images under the law?
As of July 2026, yes. The definition of "intimate image" was expanded to include images created by electronic or mechanical means, including AI, that are likely to be mistaken for a genuine depiction of the person.
Does child luring require an in-person meeting to actually happen?
No. The offence is complete once the online communication occurs with the required purpose, regardless of whether any in-person meeting or further contact ever takes place.
Is the mandatory minimum for child luring currently enforced?
The Supreme Court of Canada found it unconstitutional in 2023, but it was restored, with a narrow judicial safety valve, by the Protecting Victims Act in 2026. A criminal lawyer can confirm the current, applicable rule for a specific case.
Can I be charged with voyeurism for recording someone without their knowledge in a public place?
This depends on whether the specific circumstances gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy and whether the other specific requirements of the offence, such as sexual purpose or the nature of what was recorded, are met. This is a fact-specific legal question.