Taking criminals to the cleaners?

Diane Crocker
Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

Legal-aid director anticipates new victim surcharge legislation will create a big problem

It’s a fairly new phenomenon in the court system, but one Nick Summers figures will become a big problem.

In October, the federal government implemented the Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act which amended the Criminal Code of Canada to double the victim surcharge it imposes on offenders.

The act also makes it mandatory for judges to impose the fine in every case, without exception.

The act doubled the amount imposed to $100 for summary conviction offences and to $200 for indictable offences. In the case of a fine, the surcharge is now 30 per cent of any fine imposed.

The money raised through the victim surcharge is used by the province or territory where the crime occurred to help fund services to victims of crime.

Summers is the provincial director of the Newfoundland and Labrador Legal Aid Commission.

“We figure it’s going to become a big problem because an awful lot of the clientele we represent are not going to have the financial ability to pay these fines.”

Summers said because the changes affect only matters that have arisen since October, many people aren’t aware of it and won’t be until they go to court.

That’s now starting to happen.

Last week in Corner Brook, for example, Judge Wayne Gorman imposed a $500 victim surcharge on a man and said he had no other choice but to do so.

Waive charges

In the past, judges could waive the surcharge if imposing it would cause an undue hardship to the offender. Most often that occurred when a person wasn’t working or was in receipt of income support.

Not only can a judge not waive them now, said Summers, but there is a default period on paying the fine.

“It used to be a judge could give somebody six months to a year to make a payment. Now they can’t. Now it’s 30 days,” he said. “So what we’re expecting to see is a raft of people being called back in on default hearings because they haven’t paid.”

Summers said the person will then have to explain why they didn’t pay and a judge will have to decide whether to send them to jail.

“It’s a little unclear what happens next,” said Summers. “The judges are not going to want to start putting people in jail over a fine because doing the time is not even going to wipe out the fine, from the looks of it.

“It’s a bit of a mess,” he said, adding the commission anticipates it becoming a major problem.

“It’s going to impact on duty counsel because these defaults are going to be coming back to court and it’s going to start clogging up the courts.”

He said the imposition of the surcharge is going to end up costing more money than it’s going to generate.

“Because these default hearings, they may be simple, but they still use up court time and lawyers’ time.”

New provision

In response to a request for an interview, a spokesperson for the federal Department of Justice provided this information: “While this legislation did double the surcharge and make it mandatory, it also added a new provision to allow offenders to pay the amount owing by earning credits for work performed through provincial/territorial fine-option programs where they exist. This allows an offender to satisfy a financial penalty ordered as part of a sentence by earning credits for work performed in the province or territory where the crime was committed.

“It is up to each province and territory to decide if they want to expand their existing fine-options program to include the victim surcharge. The eligibility and terms of fine-option programs fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. As with other fines, a payment schedule is possible for the victim surcharge and the schedule is under the discretion of the judge. The Criminal Code requires the court to give the offender written notice of the amount owing for the victim surcharge, the manner in which it will be paid and the time for payment.”

Ottawa’s jurisdiction

The provincial Department of Justice was also asked to provide comment on the subject, and a spokesperson indicated the legislation was the responsibility of the federal government.

In an email, the Department of Justice spokesperson said, “In Newfoundland and Labrador all money collected from federal victim surcharge goes toward funding the victim services program. The victim surcharge is treated the same as all fines and surcharges by our fines and administration division. The fine stays with the provincial court until the deadline to pay is expired, then if it is not collected, it is considered as overdue and normal collection procedures will ensue.”

Constitutional challenge

Summers said he has heard discussions among some of the commission’s lawyers about whether or not the surcharge could be challenged constitutionally.

“At this point I don’t know if there’s enough there for that.”

He said the commission’s senior criminal lawyer will look at the issue and recommend whether or not the commission should do anything.

Even then, Summers said, it will be a matter of finding the right case to argue.

“If you’re going to take the time and the money to do it, you want to make sure you got a case that’s going to stand up.”

The Western Star

Organizations: Newfoundland and Labrador Legal Aid Commission, Department of Justice

Geographic location: Canada, Corner Brook, Ottawa Newfoundland and Labrador Western Star

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • DON II
    January 25, 2014 - 09:56

    Advocating for the rights of criminals is not popular with the public or the Harper regime but here goes. The imposition of higher fines and surcharges which most criminals already cannot afford to pay is more evidence that the criminal justice system in Canada has begun to turn away from the rehabilitation model to a purely punitive model. It appears that the police in Newfoundland and Labrador continue with the questionable practice of charge stacking. In charge stacking, the accused is charged with numerous criminal charges varying in levels of seriousness but all the charges stem from the original occurrence. The charge stacking practice had been discouraged or discontinued in most jurisdictions in the United States since 1961 when then Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy questioned the legitimacy of the practice. Apparently in Canada, especially in Newfoundland and Labrador charge stacking is used to impose longer sentences of incarceration and higher fines on conviction and can be used as leverage by the Crown to promote pleas bargains with accused persons as it allows the Crown to withdraw some of the many charges until the accused consents to plead guilty on the remaining or lesser charges. Considering the fact that the early Governments of Newfoundland condoned the use of the lash and the whip as punishment for non payment of debts, the continued abuse of the rights of accused and convicted persons in the criminal justice system is no surprise but should not be condoned. Victims of crime have rights but so do those people who commit crimes. It appears that the Harper regime is not interested in hearing about the causes and reasons for the commission of crime they just want the Courts to convict the criminals, throw the book at them and send them to prison where the system will lock the doors and throw away the key. What the Government conveniently forgets is that convicted criminals will eventually serve out their sentences and will be back on the street more determined than ever to have their revenge on the ignorant and judgmental society that created them and then destroyed them!