applicable to him. The Vu sentencing judge struck down the six-and nine-month mandatory minimums in s. 7(2)(b)( i) and ( ii) of
the CDSA (less than 201 and more than five plants) and the
three-year mandatory minimum arising from s. 7(3)(c) of the
CDSA in relation to s. 7(2)(b)( vi) (more than 500 plants plus a
statutory aggravating factor), but he declined to strike down the
two-year mandatory minimum in s. 7(2)(b)( v) (more than
500 plants). While the Vu sentencing judge found the subsections of s. 7(2)(b) were interrelated, he determined s. 7(2)(b)( i)
and ( ii) were severable and did not render the balance of
s. 7(2)(b) invalid.
 On December 18, 2015, the Vu sentencing judge sentenced Mr. Vu to the mandatory minimum two years’ imprisonment for production of more than 500 marijuana plants and to
three months’ imprisonment concurrent for theft of electricity.
Mr. Vu was released on parole on August 2, 2016 and his two-year sentence has now been completed.
 Both the Crown and Mr. Vu seek leave to appeal the
two-year mandatory minimum sentence imposed on Mr. Vu.
The Crown asserts that the sentencing judge erred in striking
down the three-year mandatory minimum arising from
s. 7(3)(c) of the CDSA and that he further erred in striking
down the six and nine-month mandatory minimums imposed
by s. 7(2)(b)( i) and ( ii).
 Mr. Vu claims that the sentencing judge erred in concluding that s. 7(2)(b)( i) and ( ii) are severable from the balance
of s. 7(2)(b) and in failing to strike down the entire subsection.
Further, he relies on Pham to assert that s. 7(2)(b)( v) and
( vi) are unconstitutional.
 My conclusions in the Pham appeal — that ss. 7(2)(b)( v),
7(2)(b)( vi) and 7(3)(c) of the CDSA violate s. 12 of the Charter
and cannot be saved by s. 1 — govern the constitutional issues
in the Vu sentence appeals. Ms. Pham and Mr. Vu were both
found guilty of producing more than 500 plants and the Crown
relied on the same aggravating factor (s. 7(3)(c)) in relation to
both. Accordingly, the same mandatory minimum sentencing
provisions applied to both. In the result, I would uphold the Vu
sentencing judge’s determination that the three-year mandatory
minimum under s. 7(3)(c) is invalid but set aside his determination that the two-year mandatory minimum under s. 7(2)(b)( v) is
valid. However, as Mr. Vu has now completed his sentence,
I would dismiss his appeal of his two-year sentence as moot.
 As for the Crown’s argument concerning s. 7(2)(b)( i) and
( ii) of the CDSA, I am not persuaded that the Crown has an
appeal route to this court concerning the Vu sentencing judge’s