To decide the appeal, the Supreme Court examined a scenario in which an 18-year-old receives an explicit photo of a friend's 17-year-old girlfriend.
Justice Mary Moreau wrote on the behalf of the majority that “in the age of digital communication” that last scenario “is not uncommon.”
She said while the actions of the offender in this scenario are serious, they fall on the low end of the gravity scale for crimes of possessing child pornography.
Imposing a sentence of one year's imprisonment on the 18-year-old representative offender — when a fit punishment would be a conditional discharge with strict probationary terms — would constitute a grossly disproportionate sentence, she said.
Emphasis my own:
The top court said it was only weighing the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentences, and not whether the sentences imposed on the two men were appropriate.