The offender was found guilty of two counts of possession of child pornography and challenged the constitutionality of the six-month mandatory minimum sentence under s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code, arguing it violated s. 12 of the Charter.
The court determined that a fit sentence for the offender was ten months' imprisonment, making the mandatory minimum not grossly disproportionate for him.
The court also rejected the argument that the mandatory minimum would be grossly disproportionate for a reasonably foreseeable offender.
The offender was sentenced to ten months' imprisonment, less sixty days' credit for time spent on house arrest bail, followed by two years of probation.
