illustrate that the reach of s. 7(2)(b)( v) is grossly disproportionate in some cases.
 The first such case is this court’s recent decision in
Johnson — a case relied on by the Crown, which illustrates the
potential for a grossly disproportionate sentence in two ways.
Mr. Johnson was charged with unauthorized production of
marijuana at a friend’s grow operation. His friend had a licence
to produce marijuana at one location, and was in the process
of applying for a licence to produce at a second location
(the location where Mr. Johnson was found). In sending the
matter back for a new trial, this court held that Mr. Johnson
could have a mistake of fact defence to the charge given that
the theory advanced at trial was that Mr. Johnson was liable
as an aider.
 However, a person such as Mr. Johnson’s friend would be
in a different position if he was mistaken as to the location
where he was authorized to produce marijuana. Applying Nur
and MacDonald, a mistake of fact defence would not be available to Mr. Johnson’s friend, the actual licensee, even if he was
honestly mistaken as to the terms or status of his licence and,
as a result of the mistake, produced at an unauthorized location. Both Nur and MacDonald make it clear that a mistake as
to the terms of one’s licence is a mistake of law, not a mistake
 The second hypothetical that arises from Johnson is that
Mr. Johnson was arrested while waiting for a water truck at an
unlicensed grow operation because his friend was unable to
attend. If Mr. Johnson’s defence of honest but mistaken belief
were to fail, he would be exposed to a two-year mandatory minimum sentence even if his only involvement in the grow operation was to wait for the water delivery.
 Two other recent decisions are also instructive. Following
the appeal hearing, with the consent of the Crown, counsel for
Mr. Vu brought two recent decisions of the British Columbia
Court of Appeal to our attention: R. v. Serov,  B.C.J. No.
2657, 2017 BCCA 456 and R. v. McGee,  B.C.J. No. 2658,
2017 BCCA 457.
 In Serov, the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that
s. 7(2)(b)( iii) and ( iv) violate s. 12 of the Charter and cannot
be saved by s. 1. It made the same finding in relation to
s. 7(2)(b)( v) and ( vi) in McGee. In both cases, the court relied on a
hypothetical involving an offender who plays a very limited
role in the production of marijuana but at law is considered
a party to the production. The court concluded that because
of the very limited role of the hypothetical helper, the mandatory