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 kuu akura on Unsplash.
⌛ On Friday, July 10, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada will release its decision in Attorney General of Quebec v. Mario Denis. At issue is whether the six-month mandatory minimum sentence for communicating to obtain sexual services for consideration from a person under 18 violates s. 12 of the Charter.
🏁 Denis will mark the end of the season and we’ll announce winners next week. We’ll reset streaks and start a fresh season in September.
🎯 On June 26, 2026, the SCC released its decision in Edmonton (Police Service) v. McKee, 2026 SCC 24. In a unanimous decision, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that relevant police misconduct information must be disclosed in a criminal case even if it has been removed from an officer’s disciplinary file.
🤖 87% of Fantasy Courts players correctly predicted the result! The SCCbot got it right.
🔮 Head over to Fantasy Courts to lock in your predictions for this week’s decision. Scroll down for details on this week’s case and a recap of the last decision predicted.
Case to Predict: Can Parliament Require Jail for Seeking Paid Sex from a Minor?
Appeal by leave from Denis c. R., 2024 QCCA 647
What Happened?
Police in Laval posted fictitious ads on escort websites. The ads emphasized the youthfulness of the people involved. Denis communicated with an undercover police officer. According to the officer, she mentioned the young girl’s age at least four times, but Denis did not react. He was arrested when he entered the room where the “escort” was.
Denis was convicted under s. 286.1(2) of the Criminal Code: communicating for the purpose of obtaining sexual services for consideration from a person under 18. He challenged the six-month mandatory minimum sentence. The trial judge imposed six months’ imprisonment and did not decide the constitutional issue.
The Quebec Court of Appeal upheld the six-month sentence in Denis’s case, but declared the mandatory minimum invalid and of no force or effect under s. 52(1) of the Charter. The Attorney General of Quebec appealed to the SCC.
What Was Argued at the SCC?
Appellant: The Attorney General of Quebec argues that the six-month minimum is not cruel and unusual. The offence is inherently serious because it targets the demand side of child sexual exploitation. The AGQ says the Court of Appeal relied on unrealistic or overly sympathetic hypothetical scenarios, including a young 18-year-old communicating with a minor for whom he has feelings. It also argues the Court of Appeal failed to properly apply the Hills and Hilbach framework, including the need to consider Parliament’s objectives of denunciation and deterrence.
Respondent: Denis argues that the Court of Appeal got it right. The offence can capture a wide range of conduct, including young adults, first offenders, online communications, and cases involving reduced moral culpability. Denis says the constitutional question is not whether the offence is serious, but whether mandatory jail is grossly disproportionate in reasonably foreseeable cases. He argues that six months’ imprisonment can be excessive where a proportionate sentence might be a conditional sentence, a discontinuous sentence, or a much shorter custodial term.
What Else Should You Know Before Making a Prediction?
The Court has struck down several mandatory minimums under s. 12, most recently in Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senneville, 2025 SCC 33, which also involved offences concerning minors. But the trend is not one-way: in Hilbach, the Court upheld firearm-related mandatory minimums, and Senneville was a close 5:4 split. I’m leaning toward appeal dismissed on the basis that the Senneville majority holds together, but this is obviously a close call.
SCCbot
This season, we’re also asking the SCCbot, an AI tool that predicts Supreme Court of Canada decisions, what it thinks the Court will do. This week, the SCCbot predicts the appeal will be dismissed (with ~62% confidence). It expects the Court to uphold the Quebec Court of Appeal’s finding that the six-month mandatory minimum for communicating to obtain a minor’s sexual services for payment (s. 286.1(2)(a)) violates s. 12 of the Charter, largely on the strength of the Court’s own very recent trilogy in Hills, Hilbach, and Bertrand Marchand, where the majority was attentive to reasonably foreseeable low-end scenarios and the need for individualized sentencing. SCCbot is now 11 for 16 in its predictions.
Previous Case Recap: Edmonton (Police Service) v. McKee
Edmonton (Police Service) v. McKee, 2026 SCC 24
Held (7:0): Appeal dismissed. Relevant police misconduct information must be disclosed in a criminal case even if it has been administratively removed from an officer’s disciplinary record.
Key points:
- The criminal disclosure regime is constitutionally grounded in the accused’s right to make full answer and defence.
- Police misconduct records fall within the first-party disclosure framework where the misconduct relates to the investigation or could reasonably affect the case against the accused.
- Administrative expungement changes the disciplinary status of the record. It does not erase the underlying misconduct finding for criminal disclosure purposes.
- The Crown, not the police, is the ultimate arbiter of relevance for disclosure.
- Police may raise privacy concerns, but they cannot unilaterally withhold relevant misconduct information from the Crown.
- The decision clarifies and strengthens the McNeil framework for police-to-Crown disclosure.
📊 87% of Fantasy Courts players predicted correctly. The SCCbot got it right.
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