Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: Recent Trends & Challenges in Alberta

Mandatory minimum sentences have long been one of the most debated issues in Canadian criminal law. These laws require judges to impose at least a set minimum penalty for certain offences, often involving firearms, drugs, or sexual violence. Supporters argue they ensure consistency and deterrence, while critics say they remove judicial discretion and can lead to unfair results.

In Alberta, mandatory minimums remain a live issue. Recent court challenges, federal reforms, and shifting attitudes toward sentencing all play a role in how these laws are applied today. For anyone facing charges in Edmonton or Northern Alberta, understanding how mandatory minimums work — and how they can be challenged — is critical.

Where Mandatory Minimums Apply

Mandatory minimums are found throughout the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Some of the most common offences that carry minimum penalties include:

• Firearm offences, such as using a gun in the commission of an offence or possession of a prohibited weapon.
• Certain drug trafficking and importing charges.
• Sexual offences against children.

In Alberta, prosecutors often pursue charges with mandatory minimums aggressively, especially in cases tied to organized crime, firearms, or serious violence.

Recent Court Challenges

The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down a number of mandatory minimums in recent years on constitutional grounds, finding that they violate the right under section 12 of the Charter not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.

For example:

• In R. v. Nur (2015), the Court struck down mandatory minimums for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, finding they could capture offenders whose conduct was at the lower end of the spectrum.
• In R. v. Lloyd (2016), a one-year minimum for certain drug offences was declared unconstitutional.
• More recently, courts in Alberta have followed this approach, reviewing mandatory minimums case by case to ensure they do not impose grossly disproportionate punishment.

This trend suggests that while some mandatory minimums remain in force, others are increasingly vulnerable to Charter challenges.

The Defence Perspective

For defence lawyers, mandatory minimums present both challenges and opportunities. On one hand, if a charge carries a minimum, the Crown may use it as leverage during plea negotiations. On the other, if the minimum appears disproportionate, the defence may bring a constitutional challenge.

Strategies can include:

• Arguing that the minimum is grossly disproportionate in the client’s circumstances.
• Presenting evidence of rehabilitation, mitigating factors, and low risk of reoffending.
• Advocating for the least restrictive sentence possible when multiple sentencing options are available.

These arguments don’t guarantee success, but they can shift the outcome — especially if courts are open to reconsidering mandatory penalties.

Proposals for Reform

The federal government has already taken steps to roll back some mandatory minimums. In 2022, Bill C-5 repealed certain firearm and drug-related minimum sentences, citing concerns about systemic racism and the over-incarceration of Indigenous and marginalized people.

The debate continues. Some legal commentators in Alberta argue that mandatory minimums should be abolished altogether, while others call for them to remain for the most serious offences. For now, the law remains a patchwork: some minimums are gone, others stand, and many are being challenged.

What This Means for Alberta

For people charged with offences in Edmonton and Northern Alberta, the uncertainty around mandatory minimums creates risk but also opportunity. A charge that seems to carry a guaranteed prison sentence may not, depending on how the courts interpret the law. At the same time, the Crown may still push for the minimum where it remains valid.

This is why early legal advice is so important. Defence counsel can explain whether a particular minimum is still enforceable, whether a Charter challenge may succeed, and what realistic outcomes to expect.

Final Thoughts

Mandatory minimum sentencing remains one of the most controversial aspects of Canadian criminal law. In Alberta, courts are grappling with where to draw the line between deterrence and fairness. While some mandatory penalties remain in force, others have been struck down or softened.

For anyone facing charges, the key takeaway is this: mandatory does not always mean absolute. With the right defence strategy, there may be options to avoid the harshest outcomes.