This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact The Epoch Times Reprints.
The Supreme Court of Canada has restored a mandatory minimum sentence for individuals convicted of communicating to obtain, or attempting to obtain, sexual services from a person under the age of 18.
The 7-2 decision, released July 10, restores six months as the mandatory minimum sentence.
The ruling overturns a May 2024 decision by the Quebec Court of Appeal that found the mandatory minimum sentence for the crime was unconstitutional under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, saying could amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
The appeal stemmed from the case of 61-year-old Mario Denis, who was convicted of communicating online to obtain sexual services from someone he believed was a girl under the age of 18.
Denis had responded to an online ad for an underage escort on a website “known for offering sexual services from children,” according to court documents.
The advertisement was part of an undercover police operation. Denis was communicating with an undercover officer posing as an underage girl and was arrested after entering the room where he believed she would be.
The Court of Quebec found Denis guilty under section 286.1(2) of the Criminal Code, which deals with communicating for the purpose of obtaining sexual services from a person under 18. He was sentenced to the mandatory six-month sentence after conviction, but appealed on the grounds that the sentence violated his Charter protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
The Quebec Court of Appeal agreed that the mandatory minimum sentence was unconstitutional, but it did not reduce Denis’s sentence.
The court found the six-month sentence was still appropriate in Denis’s case, but ruled that judges should not be forced to impose that same minimum in every case where a person was convicted of the offence.
Specifically, the court found that the mandatory minimum sentence could be “grossly disproportionate” in some cases, such as in the hypothetical situation that “an 18-year-old texts a friend who is a minor and a sex worker, for whom he has feelings; they agree to have sex in exchange for money.”
The decision marks a departure from several recent Supreme Court rulings that struck down mandatory minimum sentences as unconstitutional.
In a 5-4 decision in October 2025, the Supreme Court struck down a one-year mandatory minimum sentence requirement for individuals who possess or access child sexual exploitation material.
The majority held that the mandatory minimum sentence could apply to a wide range of circumstances and could constitute cruel and unusual punishment, while the four dissenting judges said the minimum sentences had not been proven to amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
The 2025 ruling led to significant bipartisan political pushback, including criticism from Manitoba’s NDP Premier Wab Kinew, Alberta’s United Conservative Party Premier Danielle Smith, federal Tory Leader Pierre Poilievre, and Ontario’s Progressive Conservative Leader Doug Ford.
Ottawa said at the time that it would not employ the notwithstanding clause to override the Supreme Court’s decision in the case, with Justice Minister Sean Fraser saying “other solutions” could be found to advance legislation that would protect children and safeguard minors against online sexual exploitation.
The federal government pointed to Bill C-16, the Protecting Victims Act, which became law last month. The legislation increases minimum penalties for child exploitation offences while allowing judges to depart from mandatory minimum sentences in special circumstances.
