The accused was charged with one count of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and accessible ammunition (Criminal Code, s. 95(1)). He eventually pleaded guilty to the charge, but challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum three year sentence  at sentencing.

The Ontario Superior Court held that the three year mandatory minimum sentence did not offend the provision prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment. The trial judge concluded that a sentence of 40 months was appropriate, having regard to the mandatory three year minimum. The accused appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the constitutional issue, but affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial judge.It held that the mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment resulted in grossly disproportionate sentences in reasonable hypothetical cases, and therefore held that they were unconstitutional. However, the sentences imposed the defendants were appropriate and should be upheld.

The Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that the minimum term of imprisonment for this offence would result in grossly disproportionate sentences in reasonably foreseeable cases, like for licensing offences that involve little or no moral fault and little or no danger to the public. Although the government has not established that mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment act as a deterrent, a rational connection exists between mandatory minimums and the goals of denunciation and retribution. However, there are less harmful means of achieving its legislative goal. the five-year term goes far beyond what is necessary in order to protect the public, to express moral condemnation of the offenders, and to discourage others from engaging in such conduct.