Law360 Canada (November 3, 2023, 12:40 PM EDT) -- Appeal by Appellants from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal of M’s sentence and declared the minimum sentence under s. 172.1(2)(a) of the Criminal Code (Cr. C.) unconstitutional; Appeal by Appellants from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal which upheld a Superior Court judgment declaring the mandatory minimum sentence of six months’ imprisonment under s. 172.1(2)(b) Cr. C. unconstitutional and varying HV’s sentence. M pleaded guilty to one count of sexual interference and one count of luring. The Court of Québec found that the mandatory minimum sentence of one year imprisonment under s. 172.1(2)(a) Cr. C. for the offence of luring was disproportionate in the circumstances and declared it inoperative with respect to M. M was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment on the count of sexual interference and five months’ imprisonment to be served concurrently on the count of luring. The majority of the Court of Appeal upheld the sentence imposed for luring and the conclusion that the mandatory minimum sentence was unconstitutional. HV pleaded guilty to a child luring offence. The Court of Québec declared the mandatory minimum sentence inoperative. The Superior Court affirmed that the mandatory minimum sentence was of no force or effect in relation to HV under s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) and was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter. It declared the mandatory minimum sentence set out in s. 172.1(2)(b) Cr. C. invalid and substituted the sentence rendered at trial with a sentence of four months’ imprisonment. The appeal was dismissed. Appellants were now appealing the fitness of M’s sentence for luring and asking the Court to find the mandatory minimum sentences in ss. 172.1(2)(a) and (b) constitutional. M and HV argued the mandatory minimum sentences imposed a cruel and unusual punishment, thereby violating s. 12 of the Charter....