a belief, such as a representation made to the accused. If the
Crown establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the
accused believed his interlocutor was underage, conviction
(2) Second, where the Crown is unable to establish this subjective belief, the issue of reasonable steps arises. Even in the
absence of proof of a belief that the other person was underage, the accused will be convicted if the Crown proves that
he did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the
other person. This will occur in a context where there is
some evidence that could lead an accused to believe his
interlocutor was underage.
 I therefore do not agree with the Crown’s submission that,
because a conviction for child luring requires the accused to have
had the specific intention to facilitate a designated offence, the
actual level of fault in s. 172.1 of the Code is fully subjective.
A failure to take the steps expected of a reasonable person is by
definition negligence and may be sufficient to support conviction
where, as above, the communication envisaged by s. 172.1 and
the invitation proscribed in s. 152 are co-extensive.
 On the other hand, s. 172.1(b) contemplates the facilita-
tion of other offences, most involving physical contact:
( i) section 151: sexual interference, touching a person under
16 years of age for a sexual purpose;
( ii) section 160(3): bestiality in the presence of a child;
( iii) section 173(2): exposure of genitals to a person under 16
years of age;
( iv) section 271: sexual assault;
( v) section 272: sexual assault with a weapon or causing bodily
( vi) section 273: aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault
which maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the
( vii) section 280: abduction of a person under 16 years of age.
 I do agree with the Crown that the determination as to
whether the Internet communication contemplated by s. 172.1
was made for the purpose of facilitating one of these other
offences usually involving physical contact will be determined
substantially on a subjective basis.