Three piece suits, sock wars, and a serious legal deep-dive. In this episode, Joseph and Alper unpack the Supreme Court of Canada’s Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senville, 2025 SCC 33 ruling, which struck down the one-year mandatory minimum for possession/accessing child pornography on indictment under Criminal Code s. 163.1(4)(a) and 163.1(4.1)(a). They explain Section 12 of the Charter (cruel and unusual punishment), why reasonable hypotheticals matter, and how judicial discretion prevents grossly disproportionate outcomes using real world scenarios (including an autistic 18-year-old and the youth sexting hypothetical) to illustrate nuance. They also set the record straight on R. v. Friesen (2020 SCC 9): courts remain firm on protecting children and imposing stiffer ranges where warranted; Senville doesn’t weaken that. Plus: media framing vs. facts, trusting judges over politics, calls for principled sentencing, and yes whether festive socks ever belong with a three-piece suit.
