The Court in that case interpreted ยง 172.1 of the criminal code so as to allow prosecution of adults who "communicate by computer with underage children or adolescents for the purposes of facilitating the commission of [] offenses."
However, and this is the scary part, the Court defines facilitation to include "grooming," "reducing their inhibitions," and "prurient discourse." Further, the Court went on to note that "sexually explicit language is not an essential element of the offense[]" and that grooming can include "conversations about their home life, their personal interests or other innocuous topics." And since the intent to actually commit an underlying offense (or even to meet the minor) is not an element of the crime, the ruling has been interpreted by some as effectively criminalizing online adult-youth communication:
"If you're an adult and if you're having conversations with a child on the Internet, be warned because even if your conversations aren't sexual and even if your conversations are not for the purpose of meeting a child and committing an offence against a child, what you're doing is potentially a crime" --Mark Hecht, of Beyond Borders.
For more information, CTV has a decent article at: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s … hub=Canada
The decision can be read at: http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2009/2 … scc56.html
]]>