The court balanced the societal interest to regulate child pornography against the right to freedom of expression possessed by the defendants under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; holding, that while general prohibition of child pornography was constitutional, there were some limits imposed by the Charter.

Sharpe argued that the relevant provision of the criminal code placed an unreasonable limitation on his freedom of expression, and in a ruling the British Columbia Court of Appeal concurred;[2] Justice Duncan Shaw ruled that the law was a "profound invasion" of the freedom of expression and right to privacy found in the Charter.

Before its eventual reexamination by the Supreme Court, the decision invited protest, with more than half of the Members of Parliament petitioning the Prime Minister to intervene.

[3] In its ruling the Supreme Court emphasized the interest of the government to prevent the proliferation of child pornography and upheld its prohibition (reversing the decision to strike down the statute at-large), while also recognizing the importance of "adolescent self-fulfillment, self-actualization and sexual exploration and identity."

-(Paragraph 109) and that also commentated "To ban the possession of our own private musings thus falls perilously close to criminalizing the mere articulation of thought. "