2014oncj208
2014oncj208
No summary has been written for this decision yet.
Case law
Victim Fine Surcharge
7 reported decisions on this issue.
2014oncj428
2014oncj428
No summary has been written for this decision yet.
2017onca552
2017onca552
No summary has been written for this decision yet.
2017onca554
2017onca554
No summary has been written for this decision yet.
R v Express Roll-Off Services
[2002] O.J. No. 5518
No summary has been written for this decision yet.
R v Larocque
[2015] ONSC 5407
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
29 September 2015
multiple charges including mischief and assault
R. v. Larocque
2015 ONSC 5407
Ontario Superior Court of Justice — Justice Laurie Lacelle | September 29, 2015
Background
Daniel Larocque, a 22-year-old man with mental health and addiction issues, pleaded guilty to seven criminal charges including mischief, assault, uttering threats, and drug possession. The Crown proceeded summarily on all charges. Larocque received a conditional sentence and probation, but under section 737(2) of the Criminal Code, he also faced a mandatory victim surcharge of $700 ($100 per charge).
Larocque lived on disability benefits, with only $136 per month left after housing and food — about $4.50 per day for personal expenses like dental supplies, deodorant, and cigarettes (which he used to control his addiction to other substances). He argued that forcing him to pay the victim surcharge violated his Charter rights under sections 7, 12, and 15.
Issues
- Does the mandatory victim surcharge constitute "punishment" under section 12 of the Charter?
- If so, does it constitute cruel and unusual punishment for impoverished offenders?
- Do sections 7 and 15 of the Charter provide additional protection?
The Charter Challenge
The trial judge had found section 737(1) unconstitutional under section 12, reasoning that the victim surcharge was "punishment" and that forcing an impoverished person to pay would create ongoing stress and prevent them from "paying their debt to society." The judge declared the entire provision of no force and effect.
The Superior Court disagreed on appeal. Justice Lacelle found that while the victim surcharge is punishment under the Rodgers test (it's part of the "arsenal of sanctions" and serves sentencing principles like deterrence and restitution), it doesn't violate section 12. The court emphasized that section 734.3 allows offenders to apply for extensions of time to pay, and section 734.7 prevents incarceration for inability to pay due to poverty.
The Reality Check
The Superior Court criticized the trial judge for speculating about Larocque's future circumstances. Following R. v. Wu, courts cannot assume an offender's poverty will continue indefinitely. The court also noted that if stress from unpaid fines constituted cruel and unusual punishment, it would render the test meaningless — offenders face many stressful consequences, including lengthy probation orders that create ongoing risk of further incarceration.
Key Takeaway
Mandatory victim surcharges survive Charter challenges, even for impoverished offenders, because built-in protections prevent the worst consequences.
The court's message was clear: while the victim surcharge may be harsh for people living in poverty, the Criminal Code's extension provisions and prohibition on jailing people who can't pay provide sufficient constitutional protection. Self-represented defendants facing financial hardship should focus on applying for time extensions under section 734.3 rather than challenging the surcharge itself.
R v Tinker
[2015] ONSC 2284
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
9 April 2015
uttering threats
R. v. Tinker, Judge, Bondoc & Mead
2015 ONSC 2284
Ontario Superior Court of Justice — Justice B. Glass | April 9, 2015
Background
Four defendants with serious financial hardships were sentenced on various Criminal Code charges. Edward Tinker, 55, lived on $1,200 monthly from CPP and Workers' Compensation, with only $170 left after rent and medication. Kelly Judge, 51 and legally blind, had $31 per month after expenses from her $831 disability pension. Michael Bondoc was unemployed, and Wesley Mead supported his family on Ontario Disability Support. All pled guilty to summary conviction offences carrying mandatory $100 victim surcharges per charge — totalling $200-$300 each.
The trial judge found that imposing mandatory victim surcharges on these financially vulnerable defendants violated section 7 of the Charter (life, liberty and security of the person). The Crown appealed, arguing that victim surcharges aren't punishment at all, just a "consequence of conviction" like DNA orders.
Issues
- Are victim surcharges a form of fine or criminal punishment?
- Do mandatory victim surcharges violate section 7 Charter rights when imposed on impoverished defendants?
The Nature of Victim Surcharges
Justice Glass ruled that victim surcharges under section 737 of the Criminal Code are not fines or criminal punishments. Instead, they're simply "a sum of money established to be a consequence of breaking the law" — like DNA orders, they're requirements flowing from conviction, not sanctions in their own right. The judge distinguished surcharges from actual penalties, noting they go into a pool to help crime victims rather than punish offenders.
Even if surcharges were punishment, Glass found they weren't "grossly disproportionate." He applied the test from R. v. Nur, considering factors like the gravity of offences, defendants' characteristics, and the actual impact. With the Crown consenting to 2-year payment periods, defendants would pay just $1.92-$2.88 per week — manageable even for those with very modest means.
Charter Analysis
The court rejected the section 7 Charter challenge. Following Canada v. Bedford, Justice Glass found that victim surcharge provisions aren't "inherently bad laws" that arbitrarily or disproportionately impact life, liberty, or security of the person. The legislation includes payment extension mechanisms under section 737(8)(d), and defendants who don't pay become "authors of their own misfortune" rather than victims of unconstitutional law.
The judge distinguished this case from minimum sentence cases like Nur, emphasizing that reasonable payment periods make surcharges manageable for even the most financially vulnerable defendants.
Key Takeaway
Victim surcharges are mandatory consequences of conviction, not negotiable punishments, but defendants can get extended payment periods.
If you're facing financial hardship, don't expect to escape victim surcharges entirely — but you can apply for extended payment terms under section 737(8)(d) of the Criminal Code, potentially stretching payments over years rather than the standard 30-60 days.
General information, not legal advice. No case here has been re-checked for later history — read the decision itself before you rely on it.