To decide the appeal, the Supreme Court examined a scenario in which an 18-year-old receives an explicit photo of a friend's 17-year-old girlfriend.

Justice Mary Moreau wrote on the behalf of the majority that “in the age of digital communication” that last scenario “is not uncommon.”

She said while the actions of the offender in this scenario are serious, they fall on the low end of the gravity scale for crimes of possessing child pornography.

Imposing a sentence of one year's imprisonment on the 18-year-old representative offender — when a fit punishment would be a conditional discharge with strict probationary terms — would constitute a grossly disproportionate sentence, she said.

Emphasis my own:

The top court said it was only weighing the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentences, and not whether the sentences imposed on the two men were appropriate.

but "common sense"???

/s

1. As part of constitutional negotiations, the Notwithstanding Clause was added. In a sense, the Notwithstanding Clause was literally needed to help form Canada itself repatriate the Canadian constitution.
2. Invoking the Notwithstanding Clause, is time limited to 5 years. At which point, it was originally thought that it's use was either going to be politically costly or accepted by society. Though, with winner-take-all electoral systems, the electorate can't really hold politicians accountable anyway.

Emphasis my own.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether the one-year prison sentence for accessing and possessing child pornography set out in the Criminal Code violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment.

The top court said it was only weighing the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentences, and not whether the sentences imposed on the two men were appropriate.

But there's so much misinformation among conservatives... They're obviously going for the headlines, and low information voters.