that the catastrophic consequences for child victims of Internet
luring are widely accepted and acknowledged: see Kent Roach,
“Mind the Gap: Canada’s Different Criminal and Constitutional
Standards of Fault” (2011), 61:4 U. T.L.J. 545, at p. 567.
 For these reasons, I conclude that the reasonable steps
requirement in s. 172.1(4) of the Code does not infringe s. 7 of
the Charter. This is the central ground Morrison advances for
this court to interfere with the trial judge’s decision to convict
him for failing to take reasonable steps to ascertain the other
person’s age beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, Morrison’s
appeal from his conviction is dismissed.
 I shall turn now to address the Crown’s sentence appeal.
As discussed below, the possibility that a person accused of child
luring may be convicted where it is proven beyond a reasonable
doubt that he or she failed to take reasonable steps to support a
belief that the other participant was of legal age — that he or she
was negligent — has consequences for the constitutional validity
of the mandatory minimum sentence to which I now turn.
C. The Sentence Appeal
(1) Decision of the trial judge
 After finding Morrison guilty of child luring, the trial
judge addressed Morrison’s constitutional challenge to the one-year mandatory minimum sentence in s. 172.1(2) of the Code.
He concluded that the minimum was contrary to s. 12 of the
Charter because it was grossly disproportionate in relation
to Morrison’s circumstances, finding it unnecessary to consider
 In determining what would be an appropriate sentence
for Morrison, he stated that, because Morrison was found to be
unreasonably indifferent to the age of the interlocutor with
whom he was communicating, his conduct was less blameworthy
than an offender who enters into communications with an interlocutor who he knows or actively hopes is underage. Morrison
was guilty of continuing a dialogue without taking reasonable
steps to ensure the he was not communicating with a child. The
fact that Morrison proposed a face-to-face encounter was an
aggravating factor, but it had limited weight because there was
no indication of what, if any, sexual offence might have been
facilitated by the meeting. There was no actual harm, but the
sexual communications exchanged by Morrison could have had
the effect of damaging the emotional and sexual well-being of
a 14-year-old female had he been communicating with her
instead of a police officer.