Indecent Act and Exposure Charges Lawyer in Brampton, ON

Section 173(1) makes it an offence to wilfully do an indecent act in a public place in the presence of one or more persons, or in any place with intent to insult or offend any person. It is hybrid, with a maximum of two years on indictment.

Section 173(2) is a separate and far more serious offence: exposing one's sexual organs, in any place, for a sexual purpose, to a person under the age of 16.

The gap between them is the single most important thing to understand about this section. Section 173(2) carries a mandatory minimum jail term on either election, while section 173(1) carries none.

The Criminal Code does not define indecency for this purpose. It is assessed by the court against contemporary Canadian community standards, in the full context in which the act occurred.

Two elements limit the section. The act must be wilful, so accidental exposure is not captured. And it must occur either in a public place in the presence of one or more persons, or in any place with intent to insult or offend.

That second branch matters: an act in a private place can still be an offence where the intent was to insult or offend someone. Conversely, an act in a public place with nobody present does not meet the first branch.

Public urination is the most commonly charged example, and whether it amounts to an indecent act rather than a provincial or municipal matter depends heavily on the circumstances.

Because it is a child sexual offence. It requires exposure of the sexual organs, for a sexual purpose, to a person under 16 — and it applies in any place, public or private.

Under section 150.1(1), it is not a defence to a charge under section 173(2) that the complainant consented. Limited close-in-age exceptions apply under sections 150.1(2) and (2.1).

A conviction attracts the mandatory minimum, and ordinarily a SOIRA registration order and a DNA order as well. The consequences are categorically different from a section 173(1) conviction and the two should never be treated as variations on the same charge.

Identification is a recurring issue. Many of these allegations involve a short encounter with someone the complainant had never seen before, described afterwards from memory.

Where the Crown proceeds under section 173(2), the mandatory minimum means the election and the characterisation of the conduct are often the most consequential issues in the case.