The Slow Death of the Reasonable Steps Requirement for the Mistake of Age Defence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the demise of the “all reasonable steps” requirement in s. 150.1(4) of the Criminal Code which limits an accused’s ability to assert a mistaken belief in age as a defence to sexual offences against children where he has failed to take such steps. The article demonstrates that the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R v Carbone has rendered this requirement meaningless in Ontario. Even where the Crown has met its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not take “all reasonable steps” to ascertain age, the Crown must still go on and prove mens rea as to the fact that the complainant was under the age of consent. The article argues that, where there is no suggestion that a legislative provision is unconstitutional, courts should not use statutory interpretation to effectively read a legislative provision out of existence, especially where it was intended to protect children from sexual contact with adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".