Courts in Canada have been issuing sentences for possession of child sexual abuse material that often fall below the mandatory minimum, according to a recent investigation. The government announced plans this week to propose amendments aimed at reinstating the mandatory minimum sentences. This decision comes in response to public and political backlash following a Supreme Court ruling last month that invalidated the 12-month mandatory minimum for such offenses.

An analysis of 100 cases from 2020 to 2025 revealed that one in three sentences for possession of child sexual abuse material did not meet the previous minimum requirement. The average sentence in these cases was 20 months, but judges imposed “exceptional sentences” in 30 instances that were below the mandatory minimum. Notably, 19 of these cases resulted in sentences of less than 12 months, and in 17 cases, the offenders were allowed to serve their sentences in the community.

Legal experts indicate that mandatory minimums are being bypassed in various ways. Some charges are classified as “less serious” crimes, while lower courts have ruled the mandatory minimums unconstitutional, arguing they lead to disproportionately harsh sentences.

One of the earliest examples of a judge sentencing below the mandatory minimum occurred in March 2020. An Alberta judge sentenced a man who had made and possessed child pornography of a 15-year-old girl to 24 months, to be served in the community. The judge stated that sending the accused to prison for a minimum of one year would “outrage the standards of decency of most informed Canadians.” The judge also noted that the full sentence would likely not be served due to eligibility for early release.

Janelle Blackadar, a former member of the Toronto Police Service’s child exploitation unit, expressed concern over the leniency in sentencing for child pornography cases. “Most people would agree — from the policing side — that it’s not stringent enough,” she said.

In March 2024, a British Columbia judge sentenced a man to six months in prison for possessing child sexual abuse material involving victims under five years old. Later that year, a Brampton judge sentenced another man, diagnosed with “pedophilic attraction,” to a six-month conditional sentence to be served in the community.

The analysis also highlighted that at least eight cases in 2025 involved individuals with prior convictions for child pornography or related offenses. The average sentence of 20 months in Canada is significantly lower than the average of 82 months faced by offenders in the United States, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Other Commonwealth countries, such as Australia and the U.K., report average sentences for child pornography offenses ranging from 12 to 36 months.

Blackadar advocates for a minimum sentence of at least two years for child pornography possession, stating, “If society … held the court system to a higher standard, then I think those decisions of reducing sentences and not following the mandatory minimum probably wouldn’t have occurred as much as it has.”

However, not everyone agrees that mandatory minimums are beneficial. Toronto criminal defense lawyer Robb MacDonald criticized them as detrimental to the justice system. He believes the Supreme Court’s decision will not lead to lower sentences but will allow judges more discretion in determining appropriate penalties.

The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in October 2025, detailed in a 118-page ruling, found that a blanket 12-month jail term for all individuals convicted of possessing child pornography could be disproportionate in certain cases. The ruling suggested that judges should have the discretion to determine sentence length and whether offenders serve their time in jail or the community.

In light of public outrage, Justice Minister Sean Fraser announced that the government would introduce new legislation to address the issues raised by the Supreme Court ruling. Fraser stated that the proposed changes would ensure serious cases of abuse receive appropriate penalties while allowing for consideration of circumstances not previously contemplated when the mandatory minimums were established.