Editor’s Note: This post was written as a preview of an upcoming Supreme Court of Canada decision for the Fantasy Courts website and newsletter. Photo by Grant Durr on Unsplash
⌛ On Friday, October 31, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada will release its decision in Québec v. Senneville and Naud and decide whether Canada’s one-year mandatory minimum sentences for child sexual abuse material offences violate the Charter’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment (s. 12). Can Parliament draw a hard line for all offenders in the name of protecting children, or must judges retain discretion to fit the punishment to the person?
🕊️ On October 24, 2025, the SCC released its decision in R. v. Wilson, 2025 SCC 32. In a split 6:3 decision, the Court dismissed the Crown appeal, ruling that people who stay at the scene of an overdose cannot be arrested for simple drug possession. Immunity from being “charged or convicted” necessarily includes immunity from arrest, since allowing police to arrest people who stay to help would discourage life-saving calls to 911.
🎯 94% of Fantasy Courts players correctly predicted the result!
🔮 Head over to Fantasy Courts to lock in your predictions for this week’s decision, or read more about the case below. A recap of the last decision predicted follows.
Case to Predict: Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse Material
Appeal by leave from Procureur général du Québec c. Terroux, 2023 QCCA 731
What Happened?
The Respondents were convicted of accessing, possessing or distributing child pornography under s. 163.1 of the Criminal Code. Both challenged the constitutionality of the one-year mandatory minimum prison sentence.
In a split decision, the Québec Court of Appeal struck down the minimums, finding they could lead to grossly disproportionate punishment in reasonably foreseeable cases. The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court.
What Was Argued at the SCC?
Appellant: The Attorney General of Québec argues that the minimum sentences are constitutional, reflecting the inherent gravity of crimes that exploit children. Parliament has the right and duty to set a strong baseline of punishment to denounce and deter this conduct.
Respondents: Senneville and Naud argue that the mandatory minimums are cruel and unusual, punishing even low-culpability offenders who may have possessed a small number of files or acted without predatory intent. They argue that such rigid laws remove judicial discretion, leading to unfair and excessive outcomes.
What Else Should You Know Before Making a Prediction?
While the SCC has found many mandatory minimums in the past few years unconstitutional (Nur, Lloyd, Bissonnette, Hills), it upheld a 5-year minimum for robbery with a restricted/prohibited firearm in Hilbach. The Court said that the 5-year minimum, aimed at high moral blameworthiness conduct, was justified. I’m leaning towards appeal allowed here on the basis of the gravity of the offences and the short duration of the minimum.
Previous Case Recap: R. v. Wilson
R. v. Wilson, 2025 SCC 32
Held (6:3): Appeal dismissed. People who stay at the scene of an overdose cannot be arrested for simple drug possession.
Key points:
- Parliament’s Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act was meant to save lives, not discourage 911 calls.
- Immunity from being charged or convicted also includes immunity from arrest, since allowing police to arrest people who stay to help would undermine the law’s purpose.
- In dissent, Justice Jamal (joined by Côté and Rowe JJ.) would have allowed arrests, saying the Act protects only against prosecution, not police action.
📊 94% of Fantasy Courts players predicted correctly!
Thanks for reading and playing Fantasy Courts. If you liked today’s newsletter, we’d love for you to share it with a friend, or you can sign up to receive it as an email: https://mailchi.mp/37b20ffd0198/fantasycourts
-Tom Slade