An Ontario appeal court has upheld both the conviction and 17-year sentence of Brady Robertson for the 2020 crash in Brampton that killed Karolina Ciasullo and her three young daughters.
Robertson had challenged his impaired driving conviction and argued that the legal THC blood limit is unconstitutional, claiming it could apply to drivers who are not actually impaired. He also argued that his sentence was excessive. However, in a ruling released this week, Michael Tulloch rejected both arguments, finding the THC limit valid and the sentence appropriate given the severity of the case.
The court emphasized the extreme circumstances surrounding the crash on June 18, 2020, when Ciasullo and her daughters — six-year-old Klara, three-year-old Lilianna, and one-year-old Mila — were killed at an intersection. The ruling highlighted Robertson’s repeated dangerous behavior, including a separate incident just two days earlier involving erratic driving and a police pursuit.
On the day of the fatal collision, Robertson fled from police again, driving at high speed through a residential area, running traffic controls, and using the wrong lane. Although impairment was not conclusively proven, he had consumed cannabis hours earlier and had THC levels far above the legal limit. Another drug was also detected in his system, and drugs were found within reach inside the vehicle. He was also driving without a licence, insurance, or valid registration.
While the court acknowledged mitigating factors such as his youth, lack of a prior criminal record, and a difficult upbringing, it determined these did not outweigh the seriousness of the offences. The ruling pointed to the loss of four lives, the danger posed to the public, and a pattern of reckless driving, including multiple prior convictions within a short period.
Robertson’s legal team had compared his sentence to that of Marco Muzzo, who received a shorter term for a similar fatal crash. The court dismissed that comparison, stating that differences between cases do not automatically make a sentence unfit.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the punishment reflects the gravity of the actions and aligns with established sentencing principles, leaving the conviction and sentence unchanged.