Case in Brief

A Case in Brief is a short summary of a written decision of the Court, drafted in plain language. These summaries are prepared by staff of the Supreme Court of Canada. They do not form part of the Court’s reasons for judgment and are not for use in legal proceedings.

Attorney General of Quebec v. Senneville

Case summary

The Supreme Court of Canada finds that a minimum sentence may be unconstitutional if it is grossly disproportionate.

When a court convicts a person of a crime, it must impose a fit and proportionate sentence on that person. The Criminal Code sets out certain mandatory minimum sentences for specific offences. However, these sentences can be challenged if they lead to overly harsh results. In some cases, an accused person can make this argument based not only on their own situation but also on that of an offender in a comparable situation. That situation needs to be reasonably foreseeable and refers to a hypothetical but realistic scenario that could occur in a context similar to the circumstances of the accused person. Courts use it to assess the validity of a minimum sentence.

This case was about the constitutionality of two mandatory minimum sentences established for possession and for accessing child pornography. More specifically, the question was whether these one year prison sentences violated section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment.

Mr. Senneville pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography and one count of accessing child pornography. In another case, Mr. Naud pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of child pornography. Both of them challenged the mandatory minimum sentence in section 163.1(4)(a) of the Criminal Code, and Mr. Senneville challenged the mandatory minimum sentence in section 163(4.1)(a). They argued that these sentences were unconstitutional because they could lead to grossly disproportionate punishment, even in a reasonably foreseeable scenario. The sentencing judge decided in their favour. The Court of Appeal dismissed the prosecution’s appeal. The prosecution appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal.

In this case, the minimum sentences have been declared unconstitutional.

Writing the reasons of the majority of the Supreme Court, Justice Moreau explained that a minimum sentence may violate section 12 of the Charter when it leads to grossly disproportionate punishment, whether for the accused person concerned or for an offender in a reasonably foreseeable scenario.

Justice Moreau reiterated that the analysis under section 12 has two stages. First, a fit and proportionate sentence must be determined, either in the case in question or for an offender in a reasonably foreseeable scenario. Second, that sentence must be compared with the mandatory minimum sentence. If the difference between the two is disproportionately large, then the minimum sentence is unconstitutional.

Justice Moreau used the reasonably foreseeable scenario of an 18 year old who receives, from a friend of the same age, an image constituting child pornography. The friend received that “sext” from his girlfriend, who is 17 years old. The 18 year old briefly keeps the image on his phone, knowing that it is child pornography. He has no criminal record. A minimum sentence of one year’s imprisonment in this context would be grossly disproportionate.