By Farid Zamani, Criminal Defence Lawyer
If you or a loved one are facing charges related to child pornography, you are likely concerned about the potential consequences. One of the most stressful aspects of these charges is the historical use of “mandatory minimum sentences.”
For years, Canadian law required judges to impose a specific minimum amount of jail time for these offences, regardless of the individual circumstances. However, the legal landscape has recently changed.
In October 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a major ruling that struck down the one-year mandatory minimum sentences for possessing and accessing child pornography. While this is a significant change in the law, it is important to understand that these charges remain extremely serious, and severe penalties, including jail time, are still possible depending on the facts.
Here is a clear breakdown of the recent changes to mandatory minimum sentences, how courts approach these cases today, and what it may mean for sentencing.
Key Takeaways
- The One-Year Minimum Was Struck Down: The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that the one-year mandatory minimum sentences for possessing and accessing child pornography are unconstitutional.
- Serious Penalties Remain Possible: Striking down the minimum does not mean these are minor charges. The Supreme Court noted that these offences often justify severe penalties.
- Judges Have More Discretion: Courts can now look at the specific facts of your case to consider a sentence that is proportionate to the offence.
- Other Mandatory Minimums May Still Apply: Depending on the specific charge, such as distributing or producing, other mandatory penalties may still exist or be subject to different legal rules.
The Recent Supreme Court Decision: R. v. Senneville
Prior to late 2025, if the Crown proceeded by indictment on a charge of possessing or accessing child sexual abuse material, the Criminal Code required a judge to impose a minimum sentence of one year in prison.
This changed with the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senneville. The Court found that these mandatory minimums violated Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment.
To reach this decision, the Court looked at a “reasonably foreseeable scenario.” They considered a hypothetical but realistic situation where an 18-year-old receives an explicit photo of a 17-year-old friend, briefly keeps the image on their phone knowing what it is, and has no prior criminal record. The Supreme Court ruled that forcing a judge to sentence that 18-year-old to a year in a federal penitentiary would be grossly disproportionate to the circumstances of the offence.
As a result, the one-year mandatory minimums for possessing and accessing child pornography are no longer in force.
Does This Mean No Jail Time?
It is crucial to understand that striking down a mandatory minimum does not mean an accused person will avoid jail.
The Supreme Court explicitly stated that declaring these minimums unconstitutional does not diminish the gravity of child exploitation. In fact, the Court noted that crimes related to child pornography are serious offences that often justify severe penalties.
When a mandatory minimum is struck down, it simply means the judge is no longer forced to start at that specific penalty. The judge now has the discretion to impose a sentence they believe is fit and proportionate. In many cases, especially those involving a large volume of material, very young children, or prior convictions, judges still impose significant prison sentences.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
When deciding on a sentence without a mandatory minimum floor, the judge will weigh various factors.
Aggravating factors (which may increase the sentence) include:
- A large volume of material.
- Material depicting very young children.
- Distributing the material for financial gain or commercial purposes.
- Prior related criminal convictions.
Mitigating factors (which may decrease the sentence) may include:
- Pleading guilty early.
- Having no prior criminal record.
- Taking proactive steps toward rehabilitation, such as attending specialized counselling.
- Facts that place the conduct at the lower end of the spectrum (such as the scenario described in the Senneville case).
The Future of Mandatory Minimums
The law surrounding mandatory minimums can evolve. In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, there have been political discussions about introducing new legislation to address mandatory minimum sentences. As of June 2026, the law remains guided by the Senneville decision, meaning judges retain discretion for possession and accessing charges. A criminal defence lawyer will base your defence on the laws and constitutional rulings currently in effect.
Talk to a Lawyer About Your Options
If you are facing charges related to possessing or accessing child pornography, the absence of a mandatory minimum gives your lawyer an opportunity to present circumstances that may support a more proportionate sentence. An experienced lawyer can review the evidence, examine how the police conducted their search, and advise you on the legal process. Contact our team today to discuss your options and next steps.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are there still mandatory minimum sentences for child pornography?
The Supreme Court recently struck down the one-year mandatory minimums for possessing and accessing child pornography. However, depending on future legislation and the specific charges (such as production or distribution), other minimums may still apply.
Can you get a conditional sentence for child pornography?
With the mandatory minimums for possession and access struck down, a conditional sentence order (often served in the community under strict conditions like house arrest) may be legally available in certain circumstances. Whether a judge will grant it depends heavily on the specific facts of the case, the offender’s history, and the court’s assessment of risk and proportionality.
What is the maximum sentence for child pornography?
While the minimums have changed, the maximum penalties remain severe. For example, possessing or accessing child pornography prosecuted by indictment carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.
Legal Disclaimer
This article is general legal information only and is not legal advice. Sentencing outcomes depend on the specific facts of the case, the charges, and the accused’s history. Speak with a criminal defence lawyer about your situation.
About the Author
Farid Zamani is the founder of Zamani Law, a criminal defence firm based in the GTA committed to protecting clients’ rights with professionalism and compassion. After earning his law degree at Buckingham Law School in the U.K., Farid worked at Daley Byers Criminal Law for 12 years before launching his own firm. Farid practises criminal law and has experience handling a wide range of serious and complex cases. Dedicated to the community, Farid is the co-founder of the non-profit Children Without Borders and has contributed to many other charitable organizations.