Sentencing judge erred by concluding that victim surcharge violated s. 12 of Charter

Ontario criminal | Charter of Rights

CRUEL AND UNUSUAL TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT

Sentencing judge erred by concluding that victim surcharge violated s. 12 of Charter

Accused pleaded guilty to seven charges, including assault, and was sentenced to six months conditional sentence followed by six months’ probation. Sentencing judge determined accused was to pay $700 victim surcharge pursuant to s. 737(2) of Criminal Code. At sentencing hearing, accused argued s. 737(1) of Code violated his rights protected by ss. 7, 12, and 15 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and challenged its constitutional validity. Sentencing judge concluded that victim surcharge constituted “punishment”, undertook constitutional analysis in accordance to s. 12 of Charter, and established that victim surcharge violated s. 12 of Charter and that s. 737(1) of Code was inoperative. Crown appealed. Appeal allowed. Sentencing judge erred by concluding that victim surcharge violated s. 12 of Charter. Sentencing judge erred as there was insufficient evidence to support his conclusions concerning impact of victim surcharge on accused in question and on other offenders. Sentencing judge committed error by speculating accused’s future circumstances and psychological impact that surcharges would have on accused. It was not appropriate to attribute consequences of unbearable stress as reasonably foreseeable circumstance by hypothetical offender. Stress imposed by payment of victim surcharge did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Sentencing judge erred in concluding that victim surcharge was grossly disproportionate sentence incompatible with human dignity. However, sentencing judge did not commit error undertaking functionalist approach in concluding that victim surcharge constituted “punishment” and “treatment” within meaning of s. 12 of Charter, for it imposed penalty upon accused, penalty which he had to pay to state.
R. c. Larocque (Sep. 29, 2015, Ont. S.C.J., Laurie Lacelle J., File No. 13-1346) Decision at 117 W.C.B. (2d) 130 was reversed.  125 W.C.B. (2d) 17.

Free newsletter

Our daily newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please complete the form below and click on subscribe for daily newsletters from Law Times.

Recent articles & video

Insurance lawyers reveal their referral philosophies

Court of Appeal rules auto insurer not liable for parental negligence claim stemming from accident

Refugee lawyers speak out on federal election campaign rhetoric

Employees of Aboriginal Legal Services join major union

Pro Bono Ontario to rename Ottawa help centre after David Scott

Chasm in opinions remains after statement of principles repeal

Most Read Articles

New equality measure approved by Law Society of Ontario as the statement of principles gets repealed

Judges call out lack of support for legal aid, pro bono amid MAG presence

Chasm in opinions remains after statement of principles repeal

Law students, paralegals can continue working on the same summary conviction matters