Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that mandatory one-year minimum sentences for possessing or accessing child pornography are unconstitutional under s. 12 of the Charter.
The Court held that none of the claimed trial errors warranted overturning the convictions because the trial judge's instructions, when read as a whole, were legally sound and functionally sufficient; however the s.745.51 consecutive parole-ineligibility orders were quashed in light of R. v. Bissonnette while otherwise leaving sentences intact.
Source excerpt
Majority held the sentencing judge erred in declaring s.380(1.1) of no force and effect based on the hypotheticals he adopted; the mandatory two‑year minimum was not struck down on this record, the trial sentence was demonstrably unfit, and a three‑year sentence was appropriate but re‑incarceration was stayed in the public interest.
Source excerpt
Sentencing reasons in a sexual offences case where the court applied Gladue principles, set a fit sentence for sexual interference, and found the luring mandatory minimum grossly disproportionate.
The Court held the manner of the computer search was reasonable in context — police were justified in examining image and video files and internet history given limits of hash and filename searches and their focus on identity and child pornography evidence — and refused exclusion under s.24(2); however the mandatory six‑month minimum under s.163.1(4)(a) was struck down as grossly disproportionate in at least a realistic hypothetical and therefore violated s.12; the conviction and sentence were otherwise upheld.
Source excerpt
Kienapple stayed two overlapping counts. The court upheld the mandatory minimum in s. 244(2)(a)(i), but struck down s. 244.2(3)(a)(i) under s. 12.
The court upheld the one-year mandatory minimum under s. 7(2)(b)(iii) of the CDSA, rejected the s. 12 Charter challenge, and imposed the minimum sentence.
The Court allowed the Crown's appeal and set aside the order requiring the Crown to pay the respondent's costs because (1) the appeal was not a test-case public-interest proceeding—the respondent had a vital personal interest (liberty) in the outcome, (2) there was no Crown misconduct, and (3) the Crown's earlier decision not to appeal Middlebrook, accepted as bona fide, did not justify shifting costs; costs against the Crown are exceptional and were inappropriate here.
Source excerpt
Explore more
