The accused pleaded guilty to child luring by means of a computer contrary to Section 172.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and breach of recognizance contrary to Section 145(3).
The Crown sought the mandatory minimum sentence of 90 days imprisonment.
The defence challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum under Sections 12 and 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing it constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated fundamental justice.
The court rejected both constitutional challenges and imposed the mandatory 90-day sentence to be served intermittently, along with 15 months probation and ancillary orders.
The court expressed significant concern about the appropriateness of the mandatory minimum in the circumstances but found itself bound by Parliament's legislative intent.
