A former Saskatchewan educational assistant is challenging her criminal convictions in a Regina courtroom. Stacey Duke, found guilty of sexual exploitation, has launched an appeal arguing a key element of the offence was not met.
The Core of the Appeal Argument
The central argument from Duke's defence team hinges on the legal definition of a "position of trust." For a conviction of sexual exploitation under the Criminal Code, the Crown must prove the accused was in a position of trust or authority towards the young person. Duke's lawyers are contending that she was not in such a position at the time the offences occurred.
This appeal follows Duke's earlier trial and conviction. The case has drawn attention to the boundaries and legal interpretations of trust relationships within educational settings. The court will now re-examine the evidence and legal arguments surrounding this specific point.
Case Background and Legal Context
The original trial proceedings established the factual basis for the charges against Stacey Duke. As an educational assistant, her role typically involves working closely with students, often providing specialized support. The charges stemmed from interactions that were deemed to cross professional and legal boundaries.
Sexual exploitation laws are designed to protect young people from those who might use their authority to facilitate abuse. The appeal, heard on January 16, 2026, does not necessarily dispute all the facts but focuses on whether Duke's role legally constituted the "position of trust" required for the conviction to stand.
Implications and Next Steps
The outcome of this appeal could have significant implications. If the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal agrees with the defence's position, the convictions could be overturned, potentially leading to a new trial or an acquittal. Conversely, if the court upholds the original verdict, it will reinforce the interpretation of trust within school support roles.
The judicial process continues as both sides present their arguments. The case serves as a stark reminder of the professional and legal obligations of those working with youth and the serious consequences of violating those boundaries.
