A Quebec judge has condemned what he considers to be a two-tier justice system in Montreal after alleging that prosecutors often recommend more lenient sentences for criminals at risk of being deported. The Quebec Crown prosecution office, however, is denying the judge’s accusations, saying no directive to such effect has been issued. In a decision handed down on Wednesday, Quebec Court Justice Antoine Piché slammed prosecutors in Montreal for “regularly” suggesting that offenders receive less severe sentences, including an acquittal in some cases, so as not to jeopardize their immigration status. The case was first reported by La Presse. The judgment was in the case of Guzman Bladimir-Castillo, who stole a Toyota Highlander just after midnight on May 12, 2024 and led police officers in the Montreal area on a pursuit that lasted nearly 30 minutes. It ended when he crashed the vehicle after striking the corner of a building, causing the SUV to roll over. Bladimir-Castillo, 23, who has been a permanent resident since he immigrated from the Dominican Republic in 2017, pleaded guilty last year to theft over $5,000 and dangerous driving. During a sentencing hearing, the Crown suggested the judge impose a sentence of six months minus one day for Bladimir-Castillo’s crimes, citing “the potential impact” that a longer sentence could have on the accused’s immigration status, according to the 41-page judgment. Had he been a Canadian citizen, the Crown said nine months in jail would have been an appropriate sentence, followed by two years of probation. The defence suggested a conditional discharge and two years of probation with supervision, as well as 240 hours of community service and mandatory therapy. Reducing the sentence to six months minus a day is significant because any period of incarceration beyond that could constitute grounds for inadmissibility under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In the end, the judge sentenced Bladimir-Castillo to 12 months of house arrest followed by two years of probation and a three-year driving ban. Piché said the sentence meets the objectives of condemnation, deterrence and rehabilitation, since it will allow him to keep his job and help him ensure social and financial stability, and reduce the risk of reoffending. ‘Parallel justice system’ Justice Piché said judges can use their discretion when imposing a sentence and may consider the impact of incarceration on an individual’s immigration proceedings, but added that someone’s immigration status should not be the sole determining factor in reaching a decision, nor should it “dominate” or “skew” the sentencing process. The practice appears to be a common occurrence at the Montreal courthouse, according to the judge. “Taking immigration status into account must not lead to a parallel criminal justice system for non-citizens, in which they would receive lighter sentences than those imposed on Canadian citizens for the same offence committed in similar circumstances,” he wrote. The practice did not arise with “malicious intent” to circumvent the law, the judge noted, saying that it is likely due to a misrepresentation of case law or a practice developed “on the job.” “Nevertheless, the result remains that two sentencing regimes are currently emerging,” Piché said, expressing fears that the practice “will exacerbate pre-existing social tensions and could be misused.” Crown’s office refutes judge’s remarks In a written statement issued Friday, the Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales (DPCP) said it was surprised by the judge’s assessment and flatly refuted it, saying “there is no parallel justice or separate regime” favouring non-citizens. “Given the importance of preserving public confidence in the justice system, I want to be very clear: there is no practice at the Montreal courthouse of seeking sentences that are not fair and proportionate to the seriousness of the offence committed by a non-citizen or to their degree of responsibility,” said Patrick Michel, director of criminal and penal prosecutions. “As director, I have issued no directives to that effect. In light of Judge Piché’s statements, I made it a point to confirm with the management team at the Montreal Office that no such practice exists there. I have full confidence in the professionalism, rigour, and objectivity of the prosecutors.” Sentence includes several conditions According to the judgment, Bladimir-Castillo didn’t have a driver’s licence when he stole the Highlander and led police on a wild police pursuit of several kilometres, reaching speeds in excess of 200 km/h and avoiding a police spike belt. The vehicle was a total loss after he crashed it and he is now facing civil proceedings from an insurance company to pay $24,060 in damages. The young man came to Canada with his father at age 14, according to a pre-sentence report. His father had a history of violence and lost custody of Bladimir-Castillo, who was placed into foster care at 17. He now lives with his aunt and has held a job at a window and door company for nearly a year. In his testimony, Bladimir-Castillo downplayed his involvement in the car theft, portraying himself as a victim, according to Justice Piché’s decision. The risk of reoffending “remains high.” “The Court finds that Mr. Bladimir-Castillo was fully aware of his choices; he could have chosen not to participate in the theft of the vehicle, just as he could have stopped at any time while the police were pursuing him,” he wrote. There were several aggravating factors, including the combination of vehicle theft and dangerous driving, driving at excess of 200 km/h, the disregard for public safety, the damage he caused to the police vehicle, and the fact that he was not authorized to drive a vehicle at the time. Mitigating factors included the absence of a criminal record, his guilty plea, his steady employment for almost a year, positive feedback from his employer, and his young age. As part of his sentence he must follow a long list of conditions over the next 12 months, including that he maintain lawful and paid employment, stay at home at all times with certain exceptions for the first 243 days, then abide by a curfew for the remainder of his sentence, to maintain good behaviour, refrain from possessing any weapons, and to follow therapy as recommended by a probation officer.
