Law360 Canada ( October 31, 2025, 12:07 PM EDT) -- Appeal by Appellants from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal which declared the mandatory minimum sentences provided for in ss. 163.1(4)(a) and 163.1(4.1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Code) unconstitutional under s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) and of no force or effect pursuant to s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Naud was convicted of possession and distribution of child pornography. Senneville was convicted of possessing and accessing child pornography. At the sentencing proceedings stage, they both challenged the constitutionality of the minimum sentences facing them. The sentencing judge found that the mandatory minimum sentence of one year’s imprisonment associated with the offences of possession and accessing child pornography was grossly disproportionate in comparison with the appropriate sentences for Senneville and Naud. The constitutionality of the minimum sentences was not considered by reference to reasonably foreseeably scenarios. The majority of the Court of Appeal found that the minimum sentences were unconstitutional and violated s. 12 of the Charter by reason of their reasonably foreseeable application to offenders other than Naud and Senneville. This appeal strictly concerned the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentences set out in ss. 163.1(4)(a) and 163.1(4.1)(a) of the Code by reference to reasonably foreseeable scenarios....