Interesting that you decided to cut out certain parts from the laws you provided.
Using your first law as an example (Canada), in 163.1 (1) (a) (i) you removed the word "explicit" from the sentence, fundamentally changing it's meaning.
The actual subsection of the law should read (as per https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-163.1.html) :
(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;
Notice the word explicit there. While one could make a decently compelling argument that the scenes contain sexual activity, they do not contain explicit sexual activity. Therefore, that subsection would not apply. Likewise, looking at subsections b, c and d, none of them would apply to the removed scenes either.
Edit: Also looked up the cases you provided. In the first case, the man had both real and fictional pornography of underage girls. I couldn't find the second case. And in the 3rd case, the man was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing. None of these apply to the removed content.