To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment
Criminal law — Sentencing — Considerations

(0:00:09) Reasons for Judgment: Martin J. (Karakatsanis, Rowe, Kasirer, Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ. concurring)
(0:00:18) I. Overview – 1
(0:04:37) II. The Luring Offence – 6
(0:12:16) III. The Appeal of Mr. Bertrand Marchand’s Sentence – 16
(0:12:49) A. Facts – 17
(0:15:08) B. Judicial History – 20
(0:18:42) C. Mr. Bertrand Marchand’s Sentence Does Not Reflect This Court’s Direction in Friesen – 26
(0:22:35) (1) The Wrongfulness of Luring – 34
(0:24:08) (2) The Separate Harm of Luring – 36
(0:30:19) (3) Parliament Has Mandated That Sentences for Luring Must Increase – 46
(0:32:41) (4) Summary – 48
(0:33:17) D. The Sentencing Judge Erred in Assigning a Five‑Month Concurrent Sentence for the Luring Offence – 49
(0:34:57) (1) The Sentencing Judge Failed to Recognize the Grooming That Occurred – 51
(0:41:51) (2) The Sentencing Judge Misconstrued the Offender’s Actions – 64
(0:46:00) E. A 12‑Month Sentence Is Appropriate – 70
(0:46:23) (1) Significant Factors to Determine a Fit Sentence – 71
(0:46:53) (a) Mitigating Factors – 72
(0:48:27) (b) Aggravating Factors – 74
(0:57:02) (c) A Fit Sentence – 88
(0:57:22) (2) Concurrent Versus Consecutive Sentences – 89
(1:02:33) (3) Totality – 99
(1:04:07) IV. The Mandatory Minimum Sentences in Section 172.1(2) of the Criminal Code Violate Section 12 of the Charter – 103
(1:08:38) A. A Fit, Proportionate Sentence – 110
(1:13:04) B. The Reasonably Foreseeable Scenarios Advanced – 114
(1:20:09) C. A Fit Sentence for the Representative Offenders – 122
(1:22:21) (1) A Fit Sentence for Luring in the First Reasonably Foreseeable Scenario – 124
(1:27:50) (2) A Fit Sentence for Luring in the Second Reasonably Foreseeable Scenario – 130
(1:30:59) D. The Mandatory Minimum Penalties Are Grossly Disproportionate to the Fit Sentences for the Representative Offenders – 134
(1:31:06) (1) Scope and Reach of the Offence – 134
(1:43:50) (2) The Effect of the Punishment on the Offenders – 147
(1:44:29) (a) The First Representative Offender – 148
(1:47:47) (b) The Second Representative Offender – 152
(1:48:30) (3) The Penalty and its Objectives – 153
(1:59:59) V. Conclusion – 168

(2:03:09) Reasons Dissenting in Part: Côté J.
(2:03:14) I. Overview – 175
(2:07:49) II. Analysis – 182
(2:09:22) (1) The Fit and Appropriate Sentence for the Offender in the First Reasonably Foreseeable Hypothetical Scenario – 184
(2:22:46) (2) The Fit and Appropriate Sentence for the Offender in the Second Reasonably Foreseeable Hypothetical Scenario – 201
(2:29:32) (3) The Difference Between the Fit and Appropriate Sentences for the Offenders in the Reasonably Foreseeable Hypothetical Scenarios and the Minimum Term of Imprisonment Provided for in Section 172.1(2)(a) Cr. C. Is Not Grossly Disproportionate – 212
(2:29:50) (a) The Offence of Child Luring Is Broad in Scope but Always Involves Conduct With a High Degree of Moral Blameworthiness as Well as Harm or a Risk of Harm – 212
(2:36:16) (b) The Effects of the Minimum Term of Imprisonment on the Offenders in the Reasonably Foreseeable Hypothetical Scenarios Are Not Incompatible With Human Dignity – 222
(2:39:33) (c) The Minimum Term of Imprisonment Is Not Grossly Disproportionate to What Is Necessary To Achieve Parliament’s Objectives – 226
(2:42:58) III. Conclusion – 231