Vincent R. Paquet

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec affirming the inadequacy of the trial judge's reasons.

A majority of the Court dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal concerning the inadequacy of the trial judge's reasons.

The dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal for the reasons given by the dissenting judge at the Court of Appeal.

The judgment was delivered orally on the day of hearing.

The Attorney General of Ontario intervened in the proceedings.

The Crown appealed the fitness of the sentence imposed on the first respondent for child luring under s. 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, and both respondents challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentences in s. 172.1(2)(a) and (b) as cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter.

The majority held that the sentencing judge committed errors in principle in imposing a five-month concurrent sentence for luring, and increased the sentence to 12 months' imprisonment to be served consecutively.

The mandatory minimum sentences of one year (indictable) and six months (summary) for child luring were found to be grossly disproportionate when applied to reasonably foreseeable offenders and declared of no force or effect under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The dissent would have upheld the mandatory minimums as constitutional.