The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal is poised to hear a pivotal case next week, as lawyers for a former educational assistant convicted of sexual crimes against teenagers and for the Crown present opposing appeals. Oral arguments are scheduled for January 16, 2026.
Case Background and Conflicting Appeals
In March 2025, a Regina jury found Stacey Duke, 40, guilty on six charges related to two teenage boys. The convictions included two counts each of sexual exploitation, making sexually explicit material available to a child, and luring. The offences occurred in the fall of 2022.
The victims were students at Vibank Regional School, where Duke worked as an educational assistant. Their identities are protected by a standard publication ban. Following her conviction, Duke received a 28-month prison sentence in June 2025 but was released on bail pending the outcome of her current appeal.
Duke’s legal team argues her convictions should be overturned and an acquittal entered. Conversely, the Crown has filed a cross-appeal, contending the sentence was too lenient and should be increased.
Core Legal Dispute: Position of Trust
A central issue at trial, and now on appeal, is whether Duke was in a position of trust or authority over the boys at the time of the crimes. This element was necessary for conviction.
In her filed factum, Duke contends that trial judge Justice Neil Robertson made critical errors. She argues there was no evidence upon which a reasonable, properly instructed jury could have found her in a position of trust over one of the victims. Based on this, she asserts the judge should not have allowed the jury to deliberate on the charges related to that young man and failed in his legal instructions on this point.
The Crown’s factum counters this, detailing the evidence it believes supported the jury’s finding of a position of trust.
Additional Grounds for Appeal
Duke’s appeal raises a second major concern regarding how the jury was instructed to use evidence. She claims the trial judge failed to properly manage the issue of whether evidence pertaining to one victim could be used in deliberations about charges involving the other. Duke also argues the judge did not adequately correct an improper statement made by the Crown prosecutor to the jury.
The Crown rejects these claims. Its factum states that Justice Robertson’s correction was sufficient and emphasizes that the judge repeatedly instructed jurors to consider each charge separately and independently.
The upcoming hearing before a panel of appeal court judges will determine the next chapter in this case, deciding whether the trial was conducted fairly and if the resulting sentence was fit.
