R. v. Audet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 171

By Jimena Taquire

R. v. Audet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 171 is a seminal Supreme Court of Canada decision clarifying the scope of criminal liability of adults in positions of trust or authority over young people, with profound implications for educational settings.

Key Facts: The accused, a 22-year-old teacher, was charged with sexual exploitation under section 153(1) of the Criminal Code. The incident involved sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old former student (whom he was to return to teach the following school year). The encounter took place during the summer vacations, in a country house, after they had met by chance in a nightclub. The trial judge and the Court of Appeal had acquitted the teacher, reasoning that he was not in a “position of trust or authority” over the pupil at the exact time of the incident, given that it happened outside school hours and during the summer vacations.

Ratio: The Supreme Court of Canada overturned the acquittal. The key legal principle (ratio) established was that the “position of trust or authority” held by an educator over a young person extends beyond the confines of the classroom, school hours or official period of employment. Parliament's intent with section 153 of the Criminal Code was to protect vulnerable young people from adults who, by virtue of their inherent imbalance of power are in a position to exploit them. Therefore, the Crown does not need to prove that the accused actually exploited their privileged position; the mere existence of the relationship of trust and authority, coupled with the sexual act with a young person, constitutes the offence.

What it Teaches About Criminal Law in the Field of Education: This case offers crucial lessons regarding criminal law in education:

• Enduring Nature of Trust and Authority: It makes unequivocally clear that the special relationship of trust and authority between an educator and a student does not magically disappear when the bell rings, school closes for the day, or classes break for the summer. Criminal law recognizes that this power dynamic is pervasive and ongoing, and imposes a higher standard of conduct on educators toward their students, regardless of location or time.
• Protection of Vulnerable Young Persons: The decision emphasizes that the main purpose of specific criminal legislation (such as Section 153) is to protect young people because of their inherent vulnerability and the imbalance of power in certain relationships. It states that even if an interaction appears consensual, the law views it differently when an adult is in a position of trust or authority.
• Mens Rea (Guilty Mind): Although the Supreme Court clarified what does not need to be proven (actual exploitation of the position), it still requires the Crown to prove mens rea (guilty mind) for the elements of the offense, including knowledge of the youth's age and the nature of the relationship.
• Not a Contract Law Issue: This case clearly illustrates that this is a matter of criminal law, not contract law. Although the teacher's employment contract was a factual background (his renewed contract demonstrated the ongoing nature of the teacher-student relationship), the central legal issue was whether his actions constituted a criminal offense, not a breach of the terms of employment. The consequences are criminal (imprisonment, criminal record), not contractual (e.g., dismissal, although dismissal would be almost certain).

In essence, R. v. Audet sends a strong message to educators: the criminal law holds them to a very high standard of conduct with respect to young people under their care or who have been under their care, recognizing the inherent power dynamics that transcend formal employment boundaries.

References:

R. v. Audet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 171 (S.C.C.)