Teacher who had sex with 17-year-old former student not guilty of sexual exploitation
A teacher having sex with a 17-year-old former student weeks after she graduated may have been "distasteful, ill-advised or perhaps even immoral" but Jason Selby is not guilty of sexual exploitation, a Calgary judge ruled Friday.
Selby was accused of being in a position of trust or authority over the teen when he first had sex with her on July 7, 2018, a couple of weeks after she graduated from Western Canada High School.
At the time, Selby was 35 years old and a teacher at the school.
The identity of the complainant in this case is protected by a publication ban.
The two began a two-year sexual relationship that continued after she turned 18 that August.
In Canada, the age of consent is 16 years old. But if a person is in a position of trust or authority, their sexual partner must be at least 18 years old.
Parliament didn't define 'cooling off' period
In this case, the sole issue at trial is whether Selby's position of trust or authority continued in the weeks after the complainant graduated between the first sexual encounter and her 18th birthday on Aug. 13, 2018.
Justice Sean Dunnigan ruled that he was left in doubt as to whether Selby remained in a position of trust after graduation.
"The significant age gap between the parties and the existence of a prior teacher/student relationship might make the accused's decision to begin an intimate relationship so quickly after graduation appear on its face to be unseemly, distasteful, ill-advised or perhaps even immoral," wrote Dunnigan.
"However, neither Parliament nor the courts have sought to prohibit a teacher absolutely from having a relationship with a former student or to define a socially acceptable 'cooling-off' period."
Selby 'very emotional'
After the decision was handed down, defence lawyer Alain Hepner said he was "pleased" with the verdict and said his client is "very emotional."
"I's been a long, drawn-out process," he said. "It's been three years in trial and it's a roller-coaster."
Selby was the complainant's homeroom teacher in grades 10 and 11. He also taught her Grade 12 English in the fall semester of 2017.
The piecemeal trial took place over a number of dates in 2023 and 2024.
'Hallmarks of concern' absent
In his acquittal of Selby, Justice Dunnigan noted the accused did not groom the complainant during her time as a student, pointing out several "hallmarks of concerns expressed by the courts" that are absent in this case, including:
A childhood bond with the accused from a young age.
Parental entrustment.
The complainant being dependent on the accused for emotional support.
A power imbalance beyond their age difference.
Evidence of prior intimacy or sexual activity during their pre-existing relationship.
Authority or control over the complainant.
A particular naivete, vulnerability or weakness on the part of the complainant.
During the trial, the judge heard that after the complainant finished her final Grade 12 exam, she visited Selby in his office at his request and the two discussed meeting for coffee. Selby told the girl to call him by his first name and gave her his cellphone number.
The two began texting and made plans to meet up. Their first visit took place on July 7, 2018, at Selby's home.
'I could get in a lot of trouble'
Soon after she arrived, Selby told the teenager she could not tell anyone they were texting and meeting up.
"People could get the wrong idea," he said at the time. "I could get in a lot of trouble."
The two smoked a joint in Selby's hot tub and he commented on how attractive he found her. They ended up having sex that night in Selby's home and continued to meet up and have sex.
The relationship ended in May 2020.
The complainant testified she started to feel strangely about her relationship with Selby and told her therapist about it.
She said she began to worry the same thing could happen to her sister. She reported Selby to police and charges were laid in July 2021.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vancouver Sun
an hour ago
- Vancouver Sun
U.S. court upholds order blocking indiscriminate targeting by immigration patrols
A U.S. appeals court has upheld an order blocking immigration agents from carrying out patrols in California that led to indiscriminate detentions without reasonable grounds to suspect people of being undocumented. The ruling late Friday by a three-judge panel denies the federal government's appeal to overturn a temporary July order to halt the 'roving patrols' in Los Angeles that immigration rights groups have described as illegally using racial profiling. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong had ordered an end to the arrests, arguing such actions by agents violate a person's constitutional rights that safeguard against unreasonable seizures by the government. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. She said the detentions were being made 'based upon race alone,' on whether a person was speaking Spanish or English with an accent or because of their place of work, and ordered them stopped. Friday's ruling by the US court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit described the case of plaintiff Jason Gavidia, a U.S. citizen born and raised in East Los Angeles who was arrested outside a tow yard in Montebello on June 12 by agents carrying military-style rifles. 'The agents repeatedly asked Gavidia whether he is American — and they repeatedly ignored his answer: 'I am an American,'' the ruling said. Agents asked what hospital he was born in, and Gavidia responded he did not know, but said he was born in 'East LA.' It said Gavidia told the agents he could show them his government-issued ID. 'The agents took Gavidia's ID and his phone and kept his phone for 20 minutes. They never returned his ID.' California residents and advocacy groups sued the Department of Homeland Security over the detentions. Los Angeles and surrounding suburbs have been ground zero for President Donald Trump's aggressive immigration crackdown. He ordered the U.S. military deployed there for weeks, and agents have rounded up migrants at car washes, bus stops, stores and farms. The ruling said the government's defense team argued that 'certain types of businesses, including car washes, were selected for encounters because… they are likely to employ persons without legal documentation.' Rights groups hailed the order as a victory for those seeking to bar the Department of Homeland Security and agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement from conducting such raids. 'This decision is further confirmation that the administration's paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region,' said attorney Mohammad Tajsar of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. 'We look forward to holding the federal government accountable for these authoritarian horrors it unleashed in Southern California.' Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our newsletters here .
Edmonton Journal
an hour ago
- Edmonton Journal
U.S. court upholds order blocking indiscriminate targeting by immigration patrols
Article content A U.S. appeals court has upheld an order blocking immigration agents from carrying out patrols in California that led to indiscriminate detentions without reasonable grounds to suspect people of being undocumented. Article content The ruling late Friday by a three-judge panel denies the federal government's appeal to overturn a temporary July order to halt the 'roving patrols' in Los Angeles that immigration rights groups have described as illegally using racial profiling. Article content Article content Article content District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong had ordered an end to the arrests, arguing such actions by agents violate a person's constitutional rights that safeguard against unreasonable seizures by the government. Article content Article content She said the detentions were being made 'based upon race alone,' on whether a person was speaking Spanish or English with an accent or because of their place of work, and ordered them stopped. Article content Friday's ruling by the US court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit described the case of plaintiff Jason Gavidia, a U.S. citizen born and raised in East Los Angeles who was arrested outside a tow yard in Montebello on June 12 by agents carrying military-style rifles. Article content 'The agents repeatedly asked Gavidia whether he is American — and they repeatedly ignored his answer: 'I am an American,'' the ruling said. Article content Agents asked what hospital he was born in, and Gavidia responded he did not know, but said he was born in 'East LA.' Article content Article content It said Gavidia told the agents he could show them his government-issued ID. 'The agents took Gavidia's ID and his phone and kept his phone for 20 minutes. They never returned his ID.' Article content California residents and advocacy groups sued the Department of Homeland Security over the detentions. Article content Los Angeles and surrounding suburbs have been ground zero for President Donald Trump's aggressive immigration crackdown. Article content He ordered the U.S. military deployed there for weeks, and agents have rounded up migrants at car washes, bus stops, stores and farms. Article content The ruling said the government's defense team argued that 'certain types of businesses, including car washes, were selected for encounters because… they are likely to employ persons without legal documentation.' Article content Rights groups hailed the order as a victory for those seeking to bar the Department of Homeland Security and agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement from conducting such raids.
Winnipeg Free Press
8 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Britain hopes a crackdown on people-smugglers' social media ads will help curb Channel crossings
LONDON (AP) — Britain says people who advertise fake passports or people-smuggling services on social medial could face up to five years in prison, in the government's latest effort to deter migrants from crossing the English Channel in small boats. The government said Sunday that anyone convicted of creating online materials intended to break U.K. immigration law will face prison time and a large fine. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said the aim was to stop the 'brazen tactics on social media' used by smuggling gangs. 'Selling the false promise of a safe journey to the U.K. and a life in this country — whether on or offline — simply to make money, is nothing short of immoral,' she said. Assisting illegal immigration to the U.K. is already a crime, but officials believe a new offense — part of a border security bill currently going through Parliament — will give police and prosecutors more powers to disrupt gangs that send migrants on perilous journeys across one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said the crime gangs are a threat to global security and should be treated like terror networks. Since taking office a year ago, Starmer's center-left Labour Party government has adopted powers to seize the assets of people-smugglers, beefed up U.K. border surveillance and increased law-enforcement cooperation with France and other countries to disrupt the journeys. Despite that, more than 25,000 people have reached Britain by boat so far this year, an increase of 50% on the same period in 2024. Small boat crossings have become a potent political issue, fueled by pictures of smugglers piling migrants into overcrowded, leaky inflatable boats on the French coast. Opposition parties say the government's plans aren't working — though the government argues the problems built up during 14 years when the Conservative Party was in power, The Conservatives say Starmer should not have scrapped the previous government's contentious and expensive plan to send migrants arriving by boat on a one-way trip to Rwanda. 'This is a panicked attempt to look tough after months of doing nothing,' Conservative immigration spokesman Chris Philp said. The government says it will take time to clear a backlog of applications that has left thousands of migrants stuck in temporary accommodation — often hotels — without the right to work. The hotels have become flashpoints for tension, attracting protests fueled by a mix of local concern, misinformation and anti-immigrant agitation.
