The appellants challenged the Quebec Court of Appeal's declarations of unconstitutionality with respect to mandatory minimum sentences of one year's imprisonment for possession and accessing of child pornography under ss. 163.1(4)(a) and 163.1(4.1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
The majority held that a two-stage contextual and comparative analysis is required to determine whether a mandatory minimum sentence complies with s. 12 of the Charter, including the use of reasonably foreseeable scenarios.
Applying a reasonably foreseeable scenario of an 18-year-old who briefly receives and views a sexted image of a 17-year-old friend, the majority concluded that the mandatory minimum sentences were grossly disproportionate and violated s. 12 of the Charter.
The dissent would have allowed the appeal, finding that none of the hypothetical scenarios considered had a sufficient factual and legal connection with the cases before the Court and thus none could be considered reasonable.
