Supreme Court of Canada Strikes Down One-Year Mandatory Minimums for Child Pornography Offenses in 5-4 Decision

Ottawa, Canada – The Supreme Court of Canada, in a split 5-4 decision on October 31, 2025, ruled that one-year mandatory minimum sentences for possessing or accessing child pornography are unconstitutional. The landmark ruling, stemming from the case Attorney General of Quebec v. Senneville, found that these mandatory minimums violate Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment. The decision has sparked significant debate, with organizations like the Canadian Constitution Foundation expressing strong disapproval.

The majority opinion, penned by Justice Mary Moreau, asserted that the mandatory minimums were "constitutionally vulnerable" because the offenses they cover encompass a broad spectrum of conduct. The Court determined that a one-year prison sentence could be "grossly disproportionate" in certain "reasonably foreseeable scenarios." As an example, the majority cited a hypothetical case of an 18-year-old who briefly receives and views a sext from a friend involving a 17-year-old.

Guest Josh Dehaas, counsel for the Canadian Constitution Foundation, joined Alexander Brown, Director of the National Citizens Coalition, to discuss the implications. According to a tweet by Candice Malcolm, Dehaas described the ruling as "deeply troubling." This sentiment reflects concerns about the potential impact on the severity of sentencing for child pornography offenses.

The dissenting justices, led by Chief Justice Richard Wagner and Justice Suzanne Côté, argued that the mandatory minimums were constitutional, emphasizing society's "deep and rightful indignation" at crimes against children. They also questioned the majority's use of the hypothetical scenario, suggesting it was not sufficiently connected to the actual cases before the court, which involved individuals possessing hundreds of images and videos of child abuse.

The decision has drawn swift political reaction, with some leaders calling for the federal government to invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the ruling. This legal tool, rarely used, would allow Parliament to temporarily uphold the mandatory minimum sentences despite the Supreme Court's finding of unconstitutionality. The federal government has indicated it is reviewing the decision.

This ruling continues a trend of the Supreme Court scrutinizing mandatory minimum sentences, frequently finding them unconstitutional when they apply to a wide range of conduct and could result in disproportionate punishment. The legal community anticipates further discussions on legislative responses and the balance between judicial discretion and parliamentary intent in sentencing.