Courts across Canada have been issuing sentences for years that were less than the mandatory minimum for possession of child sexual abuse material, the
Investigative Journalism Bureau
has found.
The government announced this week it will
that would allow the reinstatement of the mandatory minimum. The announcement follows public and political outrage over the
last month to strike down the 12-month mandatory minimum for child sexual abuse material possession offences.
But a random analysis of 100 cases between 2020 and 2025 reviewed by the IJB found that one in three sentences for child sexual abuse material possession had not adhered to the previous sentencing minimum.
While the average sentence for possession of child sexual abuse material was 20 months in the cases analyzed by the IJB, judges imposed “exceptional sentences” in 30 out of 100 that fell below the mandatory minimum.
In 19 of the 30 cases, convictions for child porn possession resulted in a sentence under 12 months. In 17 of the 30 cases, the accused were allowed to serve their sentences in the community.
Mandatory minimums are being circumvented in Canada in a number of ways, legal experts say, including the justice system deeming some charges “a less serious” crime. In other cases, lower courts have deemed the mandatory minimum
, arguing “the mandatory minimum leads to grossly disproportionate sentences.”
Among the earliest examples in the IJB review of a judge sentencing outside the mandatory minimum happened in March 2020. An
a man who had made and possessed child pornography of a 15-year-old girl to 24 months, to be served in the community.
“Sending this accused to prison for a minimum of one year would outrage the standards of decency of most informed Canadians,” the decision reads. The judge went on to state that, due to being eligible for early release, the full sentence would likely not be served anyway.
Janelle Blackadar, who recently retired from the Toronto Police Service where she worked in the child exploitation unit for nearly 20 years, calls the sentencing of child porn possession cases “very disheartening.”
“Most people would agree — from the policing side — that it’s not stringent enough.”
In March 2024, a
sentenced a man to six months in prison following a guilty plea for possessing child sexual abuse material that depicted victims under the age of five.
In November of the same year, a
sentenced a man who pleaded guilty to possession of such material, and who was diagnosed with “pedophilic attraction,” to a six-month conditional sentence, to be served in the community.
In 2025, at least eight cases specifically noted that the person being sentenced had
for child pornography or other child-related sexual abuse.
The IJB analysis reviewed cases between 2020 and 2025 involving sentences for possessing or accessing child sexual abuse material. The average sentence of 20 months is well below sentences in the United States, where offenders convicted of possession of child pornography faced an average sentence of 82 months in 2024, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
Other Commonwealth countries, including Australia and the U.K., have average sentences for child pornography offences generally ranging between 12 to 36 months, according to their respective national data.
Blackadar says she would like to see sentences of at least two years on convictions for child pornography possession “unless there’s some extraordinary circumstances.”
“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.”
Not all agree mandatory minimums serve the public interest.
Toronto criminal defence lawyer Robb MacDonald says “mandatory minimums are one of the worst developments in North America justice.”
He said he doesn’t believe the Supreme Court’s decision will result in lower sentences — just that it gives judges latitude to find a fit sentence.
“I don’t think our justice system ever benefits from handcuffing judges.”
The
Supreme Court’s 5-4 split decision
in October 2025 was explained in a 118-page decision that found imposing a minimum 12-month jail term on all individuals convicted of possessing child pornography could be disproportionate in some cases.
The hypothetical scenario given was that an 18-year-old boy who received a “sext” or explicit image from his 17-year-old girlfriend would be in possession of child pornography and that a mandatory minimum of 12 months would be inappropriate.
Judges, the ruling concluded, should be given discretion in terms of sentence length and where or how the offender serves their sentence — either jail or in the community. Doing away with a mandatory minimum, it said, will facilitate that.
Following outrage from the public, premiers in Alberta and Ontario and federal Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, Justice Minister Sean Fraser told the National Post this week that the government will respond with new legislation “that addresses that narrow gap that [the Supreme Court] left.”
The proposed changes, says Fraser, “would ensure that those serious cases of abuse are met with serious penalties, but does provide some opportunity for those circumstances which were not likely contemplated at the time the mandatory minimums were drafted.”
The Investigative Journalism Bureau (IJB) at the University of Toronto’s Dalla Lana School of Public Health is a collaborative investigative newsroom supported by Postmedia that partners with academics, researchers and journalists while training the next generation of investigative reporters. This reporting was supported in part by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection.
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.
