Law360 Canada (June 16, 2026, 12:52 PM EDT) --

John L. Hill

The evil that men do reaches its lowest ebb in acts of pedophilia and, with the advent of the internet, in “sextortion” and emailing lewd pictures. But is it always men who engage in such activity?

It must have surprised many readers when the Jan. 19, 2023, edition of the Regina Leader Post reported that the RCMP suspected a 38-year-old woman who had been charged three days earlier with sex crimes against children. The police news release indicated that Stacey Duke, then an education assistant, had been charged with two counts of sexual exploitation of a young person, two counts of making sexually explicit material available to a child, and two counts of luring a child.

On March 20, 2025, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix reported that Duke wept and called out in disbelief as a jury found her guilty of sex crimes against two boys. A key issue at trial was whether Duke was in a position of trust or authority over the boys at the time of the offences, all of which were found to have occurred in the fall of 2022.

Duke admitted to sending one of the boys, a 17-year-old Grade 12 student, a request for sex and a video of herself masturbating. However, the court heard that the victim was not a student at the school at the time of the offence. The second victim, also 17 and in Grade 12 but at a different school, was a student at the time in question. He told the court that Duke contacted him via social media in the fall of 2022 and later sent him many sexually explicit images and videos of herself, as well as messages about sexual fantasies and requests for sex. Duke denied this when she took the stand to defend herself.

The jury convicted Duke of all six offences. The trial judge judicially stayed the charges of child luring under s. 172.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code in relation to each complainant, pursuant to R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729 (SCC).

The trial judge’s overall decision to impose 28 months’ custody came much closer to the 26-month sentence the defence considered appropriate than to the six years the Crown sought. Duke was granted bail and appealed her conviction. The Crown appealed the sentence. The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan delivered its reasons on May 25, 2026 (R. v. Duke, 2026 SKCA 65).

The charge of sexual exploitation under s. 153(1) of the Criminal Code requires that the accused be in a position of trust or authority over the complainant. Duke argued that because the second complainant attended a different school, she had neither a position of trust nor authority over him. A relationship of authority exists where a person can exercise power and control over another’s conduct and actions. An adult can exert authority over a young person when obedience is expected. At the same time, a relationship of trust requires the young person to have a subjective belief or confidence that the commanding individual is looking out for the other’s best interests.

The definitions of authority and trust suggest that each case must be decided on its merits. However, in R. v. J.B., 2026 ONCA 44, the appellate court looked to five factors to assess whether such relationships existed: (1) the age difference between the parties, (2) the evolution of the relationship, (3) the status of the accused in relation to the young person; (4) the degree of control, influence or persuasiveness exercised by the accused over the young person; and (5) the expectations of the parties affected. None of these is determinative; any or all could be indicative of a trust relationship.

Duke also argued that, even though she testified, the trial judge erred in failing to direct a verdict of acquittal on the charges relating to the second complainant. The Appeal Court agreed that there was no evidence of authority. However, there was some evidence, however weak, of a trust relationship between Duke and the second boy, especially given their age difference and Duke’s texts about her own son.

The Appeal Court found that the trial judge erred by failing to provide adequate instructions on how to determine a position of trust. Because the second boy had once attended a school where Duke taught, there is an argument that the jurors could have reached a categorical determination rather than examining the facts holistically.

For that reason, the court set aside the conviction on the charges relating to the second complainant and ordered a new trial. Nonetheless, the verdict was not unreasonable. There was evidence that a properly instructed jury, acting judicially, could have reasonably rendered the verdict. That ground of appeal failed, as did Duke’s appeal against her convictions on the charges brought by the first complainant.

In considering the Crown’s sentence appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the sentence appeared to be at the bottom of the spectrum for circumstances such as those at hand; it did not cross the high threshold of being clearly unreasonable, clearly inadequate or a substantial and marked departure from other sentences imposed for similar offenders and similar offences.

The convictions and the sentences imposed in respect of the first complainant’s charges remained in place. Duke was ordered to report for detention two days later.
 
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). His most recent book, Acts of Darkness, (Durvile & UpRoute) was shortlisted as one of five nominees for the Crime Writers of Canada’s Brass Knuckles Award for Best Nonfiction Crime Book. Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.