Overview
- The majority held the one‑year floor unconstitutional based on a “reasonable hypothetical” in which an 18‑year‑old keeps a nude image of a 17‑year‑old.
- Dissenting justices argued the example was not a reasonable scenario, describing such hypotheticals as far‑fetched and unrealistic.
- The appeals arose from cases where two men pleaded guilty to possessing hundreds of child‑pornography files, and a trial judge imposed sentences below the statutory minimum.
- The ruling reasserts the Court’s long‑standing use of reasonable hypotheticals in Section 12 analysis, echoing precedents such as Smith, Hills and Bertrand Marchand.
- Several premiers and federal opposition leader Pierre Poilievre were reported to endorse using the notwithstanding clause to restore the minimums, though no override has been enacted.