The defendant was convicted of possession of child pornography following a trial.
At sentencing, the defendant challenged the mandatory minimum sentence of six months imprisonment under section 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code as a violation of section 12 of the Charter (cruel and unusual punishment).
The court determined that the appropriate sentence was seven months imprisonment followed by three years probation.
The court found that the mandatory minimum was not grossly disproportionate and therefore did not constitute a Charter breach.
The court declined to impose a section 161.1(a)-(c) order, finding the defendant posed a low risk to reoffend based on expert evidence.
