R v Robertson

R. v. Robertson

2026 ONCA 281

Ontario Court of Appeal — Tulloch C.J.O., Huscroft and Paciocco JJ.A.

Background

Brady Robertson, a 20-year-old Indigenous man, killed Karolina Ciasullo and her three daughters (ages 6, 3, and 1) on June 18, 2020, when his vehicle collided with their minivan during a high-speed police chase through a residential neighbourhood. Robertson drove at nearly twice the speed limit through a red light while fleeing police. Blood tests showed he had 40 ng/mL of THC in his blood—eight times the legal limit of 5 ng/mL. Two days earlier, Robertson had engaged in similar dangerous conduct, appearing to lose consciousness while driving and leading police on another high-speed chase. He pleaded guilty to four counts of dangerous driving causing death but challenged the constitutional validity of the THC blood concentration limit at trial. The trial judge sentenced him to 17 years imprisonment.

Issues

1. Does the 5 ng/mL blood THC limit violate section 7 of the Charter by being arbitrary or overbroad?
2. Was the 17-year sentence demonstrably unfit or based on errors in principle?

Constitutional Analysis

The Court of Appeal upheld the THC limit as constitutional. The court found that Parliament's dual purpose—deterring cannabis users from driving and detecting impaired drivers—was legitimate and that the limit was neither arbitrary nor overbroad. While acknowledging that some frequent cannabis users might exceed the limit without being impaired, the court emphasized that the law targets the inherently risky activity of driving after consuming cannabis, similar to blood alcohol limits. The court stressed that perfect precision is not required in legislation and that courts should not second-guess reasonable policy choices in highly regulated areas like driving.

Sentencing Analysis

The Court of Appeal also upheld the 17-year sentence, finding it was neither demonstrably unfit nor based on errors in principle. The court identified exceptional aggravating factors: the loss of four lives, two separate high-speed police chases, the appellant's extensive driving record (15 convictions), and his decision to drive unlicensed and uninsured after consuming intoxicants. While recognizing Robertson's difficult Indigenous upbringing as a mitigating factor under Gladue principles, the court found the trial judge properly balanced all factors and that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offences.

Key Takeaway

Canada's 5 ng/mL THC driving limit is constitutional and enforceable, even if it may capture some users who are not actually impaired.

This decision confirms that driving after cannabis use is treated similarly to alcohol—the law prohibits driving with THC above the legal limit regardless of actual impairment. The case also demonstrates how courts impose severe sentences for driving causing death cases involving multiple aggravating factors, with this 17-year sentence reflecting the trend toward higher penalties following legislative reforms.