R. v. Boudreault

R. v. Boudreault
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
2018-12-14
Neutral citation
2018 SCC 58
Report
[2018] 3 SCR 599
Case number
37427, 37774, 37782, 37783
Judges
Wagner, Richard; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Gascon, Clément; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell; Rowe, Malcolm; Martin, Sheilah
On appeal from
Quebec, Ontario
Notes
Case in Brief SCC Case Information: 37427, 37774, 37782, 37783
Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: R. v. Boudreault, 2018 SCC 58, [2018] 3 S.C.R. 599
Appeal Heard: April 17, 2018 Judgment Rendered: December 14, 2018 Dockets: 37427, 37774, 37782, 37783
Between:
Alex Boudreault
Appellant
and
Her Majesty The Queen and Attorney General of Quebec
Respondents
- and -
Attorney General of Alberta, Colour of Poverty – Colour of Change, Income Security Advocacy Centre, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association,
Aboriginal Legal Services Inc., Canadian Civil Liberties Association,
Pivot Legal Society and Yukon Legal Services Society
Interveners
And Between:
Edward Tinker, Kelly Judge, Michael Bondoc and Wesley Mead
Appellants
and
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
- and -
Attorney General of Quebec, Aboriginal Legal Services Inc., Colour of Poverty – Colour of Change, Income Security Advocacy Centre, Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario, Yukon Legal Services Society and Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Interveners
And Between:
Garrett Eckstein
Appellant
and
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
- and -
Colour of Poverty – Colour of Change, Income Security Advocacy Centre and Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Interveners
And Between:
Daniel Larocque
Appellant
and
Her Majesty The Queen and Attorney General of Ontario
Respondents
- and -
Colour of Poverty – Colour of Change, Income Security Advocacy Centre and Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Interveners
Coram: Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté, Brown, Rowe and Martin JJ.
Reasons for Judgment: (paras. 1 to 111)
Martin J. (Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon and Brown JJ. concurring)
Dissenting Reasons: (paras. 112 to 200)
Côté J. (Rowe J. concurring)
R. v. Boudreault, 2018 SCC 58, [2018] 3 S.C.R. 599
Alex Boudreault Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen and
Attorney General of Quebec Respondents
and
Attorney General of Alberta,
Colour of Poverty – Colour of Change,
Income Security Advocacy Centre,
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association,
Aboriginal Legal Services Inc.,
Canadian Civil Liberties Association,
Pivot Legal Society and
Yukon Legal Services Society Interveners
‑ and ‑
Edward Tinker, Kelly Judge, Michael Bondoc and Wesley Mead Appellants
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
and
Attorney General of Quebec,
Aboriginal Legal Services Inc.,
Colour of Poverty – Colour of Change,
Income Security Advocacy Centre,
Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario,
Yukon Legal Services Society and
Canadian Civil Liberties Association Interveners
‑ and ‑
Garrett Eckstein Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
and
Colour of Poverty – Colour of Change,
Income Security Advocacy Centre and
Canadian Civil Liberties Association Interveners
‑ and ‑
Daniel Larocque Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen and
Attorney General of Ontario Respondents
and
Colour of Poverty – Colour of Change,
Income Security Advocacy Centre and
Canadian Civil Liberties Association Interveners
Indexed as: R. v. Boudreault
2018 SCC 58
File Nos.: 37427, 37774, 37782, 37783.
2018: April 17; 2018: December 14.
Present: Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté, Brown, Rowe and Martin JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec
on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario
Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment — Right to liberty — Right to security of person — Remedy — Mandatory victim surcharge — Offenders required to pay monies to state as mandatory victim surcharge — Amount of surcharge set by law and owed for each and every summary conviction or indictable offence — Offenders challenging constitutionality of surcharge — Whether surcharge constitutes punishment that is cruel and unusual — Whether surcharge infringes right to liberty and security of person in manner that is overbroad — Appropriate remedy — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1 , 7 , 12 — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46, s. 737 .
Under s. 737 of the Criminal Code , everyone who is discharged, pleads guilty to, or is found guilty of an offence under the Criminal Code or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is required to pay monies to the state as a mandatory victim surcharge. The amount of the surcharge is 30 percent of any fine imposed, or, where no fine is imposed, $100 for every summary conviction count and $200 for every indictable count. Although sentencing judges have the discretion to increase the amount of the surcharge where appropriate, they cannot decrease the amount or waive the surcharge for any reason. The imposition of the surcharge cannot be appealed.
At sentencing, several offenders challenged the constitutionality of the surcharge on the basis that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, contrary to s. 12 of the Charter , violates their right to liberty and security of the person, contrary to s. 7 of the Charter , or both. The offenders all live in serious poverty and face some combination of addiction, mental illness and disability. While the results were mixed at sentencing, the respective courts of appeal rejected the constitutional challenges.
Held (Côté and Rowe JJ. dissenting): The appeals should be allowed. Section 737 of the Criminal Code infringes s. 12 of the Charter and is not saved by s. 1. It is invalidated with immediate effect.
Per Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Brown and Martin JJ.: The mandatory victim surcharge constitutes punishment, engaging s. 12 of the Charter , and its imposition and enforcement on several of the offenders, as well as the reasonable hypothetical offender, result in cruel and unusual punishment. The surcharge cannot be saved under s. 1 of the Charter . It is not necessary to consider whether s. 7 of the Charter is infringed.
The surcharge constitutes punishment because it flows directly and automatically from conviction and s. 737(1) itself sets out that it applies “in addition to any other punishment imposed on the offender”. The surcharge also functions in substance like a fine, which is an established punishment, and it is intended to further the purpose and principles of sentencing.
The surcharge constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and therefore violates s. 12 of the Charter , because its impact and effects create circumstances that are grossly disproportionate to what would otherwise be a fit sentence, outrage the standards of decency, and are both abhorrent and intolerable. In the circumstances of this case, the fit sentence for the offenders would not have included the surcharge, as it would have caused undue hardship given their impecuniosity. Sentencing is first and foremost an individualized exercise which balances various goals, while taking into account the particular circumstances of the offender as well as the nature and number of his or her crimes. The crucial issue is whether the offenders are able to pay, and in this case, they are not.
For the offenders in this case and for the reasonable hypothetical offender, the surcharge leads to a grossly disproportionate sentence. Although it advances the valid penal purposes of raising funds for victim support services and of increasing offenders’ accountability to both individual victims of crime and to the community generally, the surcharge causes four interrelated harms to persons like the offenders. First, it causes them to suffer deeply disproportionate financial consequences, regardless of their moral culpability. Second, it causes them to live with the threat of incarceration in two separate and compounding ways — detention before committal hearings and imprisonment if found in default. Third, the offenders may find themselves targeted by collections efforts endorsed by their province of residence. Fourth, the surcharge creates a de facto indefinite sentence for some of the offenders, because there is no foreseeable chance that they will ever be able to pay it. This ritual of repeated committal hearings, which will continue indefinitely, operates less like debt collection and more like public shaming. Indeterminate sentences are reserved for the most dangerous offenders, and imposing them in addition to an otherwise short‑term sentence flouts the fundamental principles at the very foundation of our criminal justice system.
The surcharge also fundamentally disregards proportionality in sentencing. It wrongly elevates the objective of promoting responsibility in offenders above all other sentencing principles, it ignores the fundamental principle of proportionality set out in the Criminal Code , it does not allow sentencing judges to consider mitigating factors or the sentences received by other offenders in similar circumstances, it ignores the objective of rehabilitation, and it undermines Parliament’s intention to ameliorate the serious problem of overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in prison. The cumulative charge-by-charge basis on which the surcharge is imposed increases the likelihood that it will disproportionately harm offenders who are impoverished, addicted and homeless. It will also put self-represented offenders at an additional disadvantage because they may not know that they may negotiate the terms of their plea in order to minimize the amount of the surcharge. While judicial attempts to lessen the disproportion may be salutary, they cannot insulate the surcharge from constitutional review. Indeed, reducing some other part of the sentence may minimize disproportion, but it cannot eliminate the specific and extensive harms caused by the surcharge. Moreover, imposing a nominal fine for the sole purpose of lowering the amount of the surcharge would ignore the legislature’s intent that the surcharge, in its full amount, would apply in all cases as a mandatory punishment.
It is unnecessary to engage in a s. 1 Charter analysis, because the state did not put forward any argument or evidence to justify the surcharge if found to breach Charter rights. It follows that the mandatory victim surcharge imposed by s. 737 of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional.
Section 737 of the Criminal Code should be declared to be of no force and effect immediately. The state has not met the high standard of showing that a declaration with immediate effect would pose a danger to the public or imperil the rule of law. Reading back in the judicial discretion to waive the surcharge that was abrogated in 2013 is also the wrong approach, because it is a highly intrusive remedy, and because Parliament ought to be free to consider how best to revise the imposition and enforcement of the surcharge. Because robust submissions on the issue were not made, it would be inappropriate to grant a remedy to offenders not involved in this case and those no longer in the system who cannot now challenge their sentences. However, a variety of possible remedies exist. The offenders may be able to seek relief in the courts, notably by recourse to s. 24(1) of the Charter . The government could also proceed administratively, while Parliament may act to bring a modified and Charter-compliant version of the surcharge back into the Criminal Code .
Per Côté and Rowe JJ. (dissenting): The surcharge is constitutionally valid. It does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, nor does it deprive impecunious offenders of their security of the person. Moreover, any deprivation of liberty that may result from its application accords with the principles of fundamental justice.
While the surcharge constitutes punishment within the meaning of s. 12 of the Charter , and while a fit and proportionate sentence for the offenders in this case or the hypothetical impecunious offender would not include the surcharge, the negative effects associated with the surcharge are not abhorrent, intolerable or so excessive as to outrage the standards of decency. As a result, they do not rise to the level of gross disproportionality, and therefore the surcharge cannot be characterized as cruel and unusual. Indeed, a number of the components to the surcharge regime attenuate the particularly severe impact of the surcharge on impecunious offenders.
First, offenders who are unable to pay within the prescribed time will not be subject to enforcement mechanisms if they either participate in a fine option program or seek the extension of time to pay to which they are entitled. There are no restrictions on the number of extensions an offender can seek over a given period, and there is no limit on the length of an extension. Extensions may also be granted either before or after the offender defaults, and obtaining an extension is not onerous or procedurally difficult given that applications can be brought by the offender or by someone else on his or her behalf and may be adjudicated either by the court or by a person designated by the court. To the extent that a province establishes procedures that are complex to the point of being inaccessible, this cannot be attributed to the impugned provision but rather to the manner in which the province implements it.
Second, offenders will not be imprisoned if they default due to poverty; only offenders who have the means to pay, but who choose not to, risk being imprisoned following a committal hearing. While it may be difficult for judges to draw the line between an inability to pay and a refusal to do so, the fact that judges may misapply the law cannot render the surcharge unconstitutional, particularly since the provision providing for committal in default of payment does not establish an overly broad standard that cannot be properly applied by trial judges.
Third, while compelled attendance at a committal hearing will necessarily deprive a defaulting offender of his or her liberty to some degree, the deprivation will only occur where it is necessary in the public interest. Such cases will also be very rare, especially given that non‑payment is not a criminal offence. Moreover, there is no evidence that impecunious offenders are in fact routinely being detained unnecessarily pending their committal hearings.
Fourth, an unpaid surcharge cannot be entered as a civil judgment, and therefore, an offender who defaults will not face the same financial consequences as one who defaults in paying a fine or an ordinary debt. Any provincial collection efforts employed against defaulting offenders are neither required nor authorized by the Criminal Code and are therefore not an effect of the impugned surcharge.
Fifth, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the stress caused by the surcharge to impecunious offenders is severe enough to make the punishment imposed cruel and unusual. And finally, although the surcharge may not be conducive to attempts by some offenders to achieve rehabilitation and reintegration into society, this alone is not sufficient to meet the high bar for establishing a s. 12 Charter violation. In any event, an offender who is ineligible for a traditional record suspension as a result of his or her inability to pay the surcharge is not left without recourse. While not perfect alternatives, conditional pardons and remission orders may be granted by the Governor in Council. While it is likely that some will face great difficulty in paying the surcharge, courts should not simply accept that the circumstances of the offender at the date of sentencing will necessarily continue into the future. Not only are findings to the contrary pessimistic in nature; they also undermine the very basis on which the principle of rehabilitation is premised.
With respect to s. 7 of the Charter , the surcharge does not engage the offenders’ security interest due to the stress associated with the mandatory imposition of the surcharge. Neither common sense nor the evidence provides a basis for the conclusion that the actual stress impecunious offenders may experience as a result of the surcharge is serious enough that it has a profound effect on their psychological integrity.
The offenders’ liberty interest is nevertheless engaged insofar as non-payment of the surcharge triggers the possibility of being compelled to attend a committal hearing which will necessarily entail some deprivation of personal liberty. However, this deprivation of liberty is not overbroad in relation to impecunious offenders — it is rationally connected to the purpose underlying the committal hearing: to determine whether an offender has the funds to pay the surcharge and to give him or her an opportunity to explain the non-payment.
Cases Cited
By Martin J.
Applied: R. v. K.R.J., 2016 SCC 31, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 906; R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 773; distinguished: R. v. Pham (2002), 167 C.C.C. (3d) 570; referred to: R. v. Michael, 2014 ONCJ 360, 121 O.R. (3d) 244; R. v. Wu, 2003 SCC 73, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 530; R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541; R. v. Rodgers, 2006 SCC 15, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 554; Canada (Attorney General) v. Whaling, 2014 SCC 20, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 392; R. v. Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 130; R. v. Morrisey, 2000 SCC 39, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 90; R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 96; Steele v. Mountain Institution, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1385; R. v. Smith, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; R. v. Goltz, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 485; R. v. Latimer, 2001 SCC 1, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3; R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; R. v. Cloud, 2014 QCCQ 464, 8 C.R. (7th) 364; R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631; R. v. Barinecutt, 2015 BCPC 189, 337 C.R.R. (2d) 1; R. v. Bateman, 2015 BCSC 207; R. v. Flaro, 2014 ONCJ 2, 7 C.R. (7th) 151; R. v. Shaqu, [2014] O.J. No. 2426; R. v. Demers, 2004 SCC 46, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 489; R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433; R. v. Shoker, 2006 SCC 44, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 399; R. v. Cloud, 2016 QCCA 567, 28 C.R. (7th) 310; Schachter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; Reference re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101; R. v. Seaboyer, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; Canada (Attorney General) v. Hislop, 2007 SCC 10, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 429; R. v. Thomas, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 713; R. v. Sarson, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 223; R. v. Gamble, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 595.
By Côté J. (dissenting)
R. v. Wu, 2003 SCC 73, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 530; R. v. K.R.J., 2016 SCC 31, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 906; R. v. Smith, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; Miller v. The Queen, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 680; R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 773; R. v. Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 130; R. v. Morrisey, 2000 SCC 39, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 90; Steele v. Mountain Institution, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1385; R. v. Lambe, 2000 NFCA 23, 73 C.R.R. (2d) 273; R. v. Goltz, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 485; R. v. Cloud, 2016 QCCA 567, 28 C.R. (7th) 310; R. v. Mikhail, 2015 ONCJ 469; R. v. Bao, 2018 ONCJ 136; R. v. Willett, 2017 ABPC 68; R. v. Michael, 2014 ONCJ 360, 121 O.R. (3d) 244; R. v. Lavigne, 2006 SCC 10, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 392; R. v. Ridley, 2017 ONSC 4672; Chaussé v. R., 2016 QCCA 568; R. v. Flaro, 2014 ONCJ 2, 7 C.R. (7th) 151; R. v. Antic, 2017 SCC 27, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 509; Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat, 2015 SCC 30, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 548; MacKay v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357; Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 331; Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101; New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G. (J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46; Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), 2000 SCC 44, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 35, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Bill C‑75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, 1st Sess., 42nd Parl., 2018.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , ss. 1 , 7 , 11 , 12 , 15 , 24(1) .
Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.25, s. 2(3).
Constitution Act, 1982 , s. 52(1) .
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , S.C. 1996, c. 19 .
Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46 , Parts XVI, XVIII, ss. 253, 255(1)(a)(i), 495, 497, 498, 499, 503, 507, 512(2), 515, 537, 544, 687(1), 716, 718, 718.1, 718.2(e), 727.9(1), (2) [ad. c. 23 (4th Supp.), s. 6], 730, 732.1(3)(c), 734, 734 to 734.8, 734.3, 734.5, 734.6, 734.7, 734.8, 736, 737, 748, 748.1, 822(1).
Criminal Records Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑47, ss. 3(1) , 4 .
Income Tax Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp .), ss. 238, 239, 243.
Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act, S.C. 2013, c. 11.
O.C. 2173/99.
Time limit to pay the victim surcharge, O.C. 154‑2016, 2016 G.O. II.
Authors Cited
Canada. Got a question about your application?, last updated November 15, 2018 (online: https://www.canada.ca/en/parole-board/services/record-suspensions/got-a-question-about-your-application.html; archived version: https://www.scc-csc.ca/cso-dce/2018SCC-CSC58_1_eng.pdf).
Law, Moira A. The Federal Victim Surcharge: The 2013 Amendments and their Implementation in Nine Jurisdiction. Ottawa, Department of Justice, 2016 (online http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/jus/J4-48-2016-eng.pdf; archived version: https://www.scc-csc.ca/cso-dce/2018SCC-CSC58_2_eng.pdf).
Parole Board of Canada. Royal Prerogative of Mercy Ministerial Guidelines, October 2014 (online: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/pbc-clcc/documents/publications/Royal-Prerogative-Of-Mercy-Ministerial-Guidelines.pdf, archived version: https://www.scc-csc.ca/cso-dce/2018SCC-CSC58_3_eng_fra.pdf).
Salhany, Roger E. Canadian Criminal Procedure, 6th ed. Aurora, Ont.: Thomson Reuters, 1968 (loose-leaf updated July 2018, release 60).
Statistics Canada. Household income in Canada: Key results from the 2016 Census, September 13, 2017 (online: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/170913/dq170913a-eng.htm; archived version: https://www.scc-csc.ca/cso-dce/2018SCC-CSC58_4_eng.pdf).
APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (Duval Hesler C.J. and Schrager and Mainville JJ.A.), 2016 QCCA 1907, 343 C.C.C. (3d) 131, 368 C.R.R. (2d) 80, [2016] AZ‑51345328, [2016] Q.J. No. 16795 (QL), 2016 CarswellQue 11705 (WL Can.), affirming a decision of Boyer J., 2015 QCCQ 8504, [2015] AZ‑51216654, [2015] Q.J. No. 9130 (QL), 2015 CarswellQue 13978 (WL Can.). Appeal allowed, Côté and Rowe JJ. dissenting.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Rouleau, van Rensburg and Pardu JJ.A.), 2017 ONCA 552, 136 O.R. (3d) 718, 39 C.R. (7th) 53, 385 C.R.R. (2d) 83, 351 C.C.C. (3d) 310, [2017] O.J. No. 3435 (QL), 2017 CarswellOnt 10029 (WL Can.), affirming a decision of Glass J., 2015 ONSC 2284, 20 C.R. (7th) 174, 331 C.R.R. (2d) 206, [2015] O.J. No. 1758 (QL), 2015 CarswellOnt 4936 (WL Can.), setting aside the decision of Beninger J., 2014 ONCJ 208, 120 O.R. (3d) 784, 11 C.R. (7th) 43, 309 C.R.R. (2d) 291, [2014] O.J. No. 2056 (QL). Appeal allowed, Côté and Rowe JJ. dissenting.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Rouleau, van Rensburg and Pardu JJ.A.), 2017 ONCA 552, 136 O.R. (3d) 718, 39 C.R. (7th) 53, 385 C.R.R. (2d) 83, 351 C.C.C. (3d) 310, [2017] O.J. No. 3435 (QL), 2017 CarswellOnt 10029 (WL Can.), affirming a decision of Paciocco J., 2015 ONCJ 222, [2015] O.J. No. 1869 (QL), 2015 CarswellOnt 5865 (WL Can.). Appeal allowed, Côté and Rowe JJ. dissenting.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Rouleau, van Rensburg and Pardu JJ.A.), 2017 ONCA 552, 136 O.R. (3d) 718, 39 C.R. (7th) 53, 385 C.R.R. (2d) 83, 351 C.C.C. (3d) 310, [2017] O.J. No. 3435 (QL), 2017 CarswellOnt 10029 (WL Can.), affirming a decision of Lacelle J., 2015 ONSC 5407, [2015] O.J. No. 7135 (QL), 2015 CarswellOnt 20673 (WL Can.), setting aside a decision of Legault J., 2014 ONCJ 428, [2014] O.J. no 4113 (QL), 2014 CarswellOnt 12087 (WL Can.). Appeal allowed, Côté and Rowe JJ. dissenting.
Yves Gratton, for the appellant Alex Boudreault (37427).
Daniel C. Santoro, Delmar Doucette and Megan Howatt, for the appellants Edward Tinker, Kelly Judge, Michael Bondoc and Wesley Mead (37774).
James Foord and Brandon Crawford, for the appellant Garrett Eckstein (37782).
Yves Jubinville and Maryse Renaud, for the appellant Daniel Larocque (37783).
Louis‑Charles Bal, for the respondent Her Majesty The Queen (37427).
Julien Bernard, Julie Dassylva and Sylvain Leboeuf, for the respondent the Attorney General of Quebec (37427).
Michael Perlin and Philippe Cowle, for the respondents Her Majesty The Queen (37774 and 37782) and the Attorney General of Ontario (37783).
François Lacasse and Luc Boucher, for the respondent Her Majesty The Queen (37783).
Robert A. Fata, for the intervener the Attorney General of Alberta (37427).
Jackie Esmonde, Daniel Rohde and Marie Chen, for the interveners Colour of Poverty – Colour of Change and the Income Security Advocacy Centre (37427, 37774, 37782 and 37783).
Greg J. Allen and Nicole C. Gilewicz, for the intervener the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (37427).
Jonathan Rudin and Caitlyn E. Kasper, for the intervener the Aboriginal Legal Services Inc. (37427 and 37774).
Christopher D. Bredt, Pierre N. Gemson and Alannah M. Fotheringham, for the intervener the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (37427, 37774, 37782 and 37783).
Graham Kosakoski and D. J. Larkin, for the intervener the Pivot Legal Society (37427).
Stobo Sniderman, for the intervener the Yukon Legal Services Society (37427 and 37774).
Sylvain Leboeuf, Julien Bernard and Julie Dassylva, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec (37774).
Vanora Simpson and Breana Vandebeek, for the intervener the Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario (37774).
The judgment of Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Brown and Martin JJ. was delivered by
Martin J. —
I. Introduction
[1] Under the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (“Code ”), anyone who is discharged, pleads guilty to, or is found guilty of an offence under the Code or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , S.C. 1996, c. 19 (“CDSA ”), is required to pay monies to the state as a “mandatory victim surcharge”. The amount is set by law and is owed for each and every summary conviction or indictable offence. The surcharge is intended to fund government programs designed to assist victims of crime. The surcharge applies regardless of the severity of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the effects of the crime on the victim.
[2] Judges must impose a surcharge in every case — they have no discretion to waive this surcharge and cannot decrease it. Its imposition can only be appealed when the amounts imposed exceed the minimum mandated amount. Once the surcharge is levied, an individual remains indebted to the state until the amount is paid in full, although a court may, on application, give the offender more time to pay.
[3] Many of the people involved in our criminal justice system are poor, live with addiction or other mental health issues, and are otherwise disadvantaged or marginalized. When unable to pay the victim surcharge, they face what becomes, realistically, an indeterminate sentence. As long as they cannot pay, they may be taken into police custody, imprisoned for default, prevented from seeking a pardon, and targeted by collection agencies. In effect, not only are impecunious offenders treated far more harshly than those with access to the requisite funds, their inability to pay this part of their debt to society may further contribute to their disadvantage and stigmatization.
[4] These appeals are concerned with whether the mandatory victim surcharge is consistent with ss. 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter ”) and, if not, whether that inconsistency can be justified under s. 1 of the Charter . I conclude that the mandatory surcharge amounts to, and operates as, a constitutionally impermissible form of cruel and unusual punishment. Consequently, s. 737 of the Code violates s. 12 of the Charter and cannot be saved under s. 1. Given this conclusion, it is unnecessary to address s. 7.
[5] I would allow the appeals and declare s. 737 invalid, with immediate effect.
[6] The reasons that follow are divided into five main parts. The first provides a legislative background to the mandatory victim surcharge. The second provides the factual matrices and judicial histories for the cases under appeal. The third section articulates the issues at hand. The fourth section is the analytical one and includes the analysis for ss. 12 and 1 of the Charter as well as the analysis of the appropriate remedy in this case. The fifth section provides a conclusion for the reasons.
II. Legislative Background
[7] The victim surcharge, formerly known as the victim fine surcharge, was first introduced into the Code in 1988. Former s. 727.9(1) of the Code stated that the court, at sentencing, “shall, in addition to any other punishment imposed on the offender, order the offender to pay a victim fine surcharge”: R.S.C. 1985, c. 23 (4th Supp.), s. 6. At the time, the amount payable was 15 percent of any fine imposed or such lesser amount as may be prescribed by regulation. The base amounts have changed through the years. Since October 2013, the amount of the surcharge is 30 percent of any fine imposed, or, where no fine is imposed, $100 for every summary conviction count and $200 for every indictable count: ss. 737(1) and 737(2) of the Code .
[8] The surcharge is levied “for the purposes of providing such assistance to victims of offences as the lieutenant governor in council of the province in which the surcharge is imposed may direct from time to time”: s. 737(7) of the Code .
[9] In 1988, offenders could avoid the imposition of the surcharge by satisfying the court that “undue hardship to the offender or the dependants of the offender would result”: (4th Supp.), s. 6, introducing s. 727.9(2). This undue hardship exception was maintained until October 2013, when amendments to the Code eliminated this judicial discretion: Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act, S.C. 2013, c. 11 (“2013 Amendments”). Under the current provisions, the sentencing judge retains discretion to increase the amount of the surcharge where appropriate, but not to decrease the amount or to waive the surcharge for any reason: s. 737(3) of the Code .
[10] Subsection 737(9) incorporates most of the enforcement mechanisms for other types of fines set out under ss. 734 to 734.8. These include the imposition of a deemed period of imprisonment to be calculated in accordance with a specified formula: ss. 734(4) and 734(5). They also include suspending the debtor’s licenses and permits and committing the offender for non-payment without reasonable excuse: ss. 734.5 and 734.7. Section 737(9) also adopts s. 736, which allows provinces to establish fine option programs to allow some offenders to do compensatory work in lieu of paying their fines.
[11] The imposition of the surcharge cannot be appealed, unless the sentencing judge ordered the payment of more than the statutory minimum: ss. 687(1) and 822(1) of the Code .
III. Facts and Judicial History
[12] In these appeals, seven individuals appeal the rulings from four different applications to challenge the constitutionality of s. 737 of the Code .
[13] Alex Boudreault’s application was heard in Quebec. He challenged the provision under s. 12 of the Charter . The other six appellants brought their applications in Ontario. Edward Tinker, Kelly Judge, Michael Bondoc and Wesley James Mead, heard together, challenged the provision under ss. 7 and 12. Garrett Eckstein and Daniel Larocque, in separate applications, challenged the provision under s. 12. While they had mixed results before their sentencing judges, the respective Courts of Appeal rejected the appellants’ constitutional challenges.
[14] In what follows, I will set out the facts and decisions below for each of these four cases before turning to the legal analysis that applies to all of them.
A. Quebec
(1) Court of Quebec
(a) Alex Boudreault, 2015 QCCQ 8504
[15] Alex Boudreault was 21 years old at the date of sentencing. He had no high school education, having quit school at age 15. He had never held a steady job and he had had no income for almost two years. The most serious crimes for which he was sentenced were committed at a time when he was homeless, unemployed, and addicted to marijuana.
[16] Mr. Boudreault pleaded guilty on September 23, 2013 to four summary charges of breach of probation. Four months later, he also pleaded guilty to seven counts of breaking and entering, one count of attempted breaking and entering, one count of sale of stolen goods, one count of assault with a weapon, and one count of possession of a prohibited weapon. He argued that the mandatory victim surcharge constituted a s. 12 violation either in his own case or in the case of a reasonable hypothetical offender. The sentencing judge determined that he could exercise his discretion with regard to infractions that occurred before the 2013 Amendments. As such, he reduced the surcharge from $4,000 to $1,400. Being of the opinion that the $1,400 did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, he dismissed Mr. Boudreault’s arguments and imposed the surcharge.
(2) Quebec Court of Appeal, 2016 QCCA 1907, 343 C.C.C. (3d) 131
[17] Mainville and Schrager JJ.A. dismissed the appeal, but for separate reasons. Mainville J.A. opined that the various provisions that give impecunious offenders time to pay and that limit the state’s collection options leave the surcharge in compliance with s. 12: para. 135. Schrager J.A., concurring, found that the jurisprudence of this Court led to the conclusion that s. 12’s high bar could not apply to a non-carceral sentence.
[18] Chief Justice Duval Hesler would have allowed the appeal and struck down s. 737 for non-compliance with s. 12 of the Charter : paras. 29-30. Since the now-obligatory surcharge applies to every infraction under the Code , the Chief Justice reasoned, a careful examination of possible hypothetical scenarios was required in order to assess the law’s effects: paras. 5-6. For the Chief Justice, the most compelling hypothetical scenario was based on the appellant’s own circumstances. Had he committed all of his crimes after the 2013 Amendments to s. 737, he would have owed a surcharge of $4,000. Had the Crown chosen to proceed by way of indictment for all of his offences, the surcharge would have risen to $4,600. In her view, imposing an additional punishment of $4,600 on a person whose total annual income is $4,800 is incompatible with human dignity: para. 109. She concluded that
. . . such a surcharge would be clearly and grossly disproportionate. In the best of cases, such a surcharge would translate into monthly payments made over the course of six years, five and half weeks of full-time work, or 50 days of imprisonment — in addition to the 36 months of imprisonment already imposed. [Emphasis deleted; para. 124.]
[19] The Chief Justice did not agree with Mainville J.A. that the provision is saved by the fact that truly impecunious offenders can escape prison time in the event of default. She held, rather, that such a system can effectively extend the sentence of an impecunious person indefinitely, as that person is repeatedly detained and brought before a judge to offer up excuses for why they cannot pay. This routine of committal hearings will quickly become grossly disproportionate: Que. C.A. reasons at paras. 105-6.
[20] Having determined that s. 737, without the judicial discretion that used to exist in the repealed s. 737(5), violated the appellant’s s. 12 right, the Chief Justice turned to s. 1 of the Charter . She found that s. 1 could not save the surcharge, since where it will never be paid, there is no rational connection between the imposition of the surcharge and the objectives that it seeks to achieve, namely to encourage the accountability of offenders and finance victim support services: para. 130. Further, the Chief Justice found that a sentence that violates s. 12 of the Charter because it is grossly disproportionate cannot pass the minimal impairment and proportionality analysis under s. 1: para 131.
B. Ontario
(1) Ontario Court of Justice and Superior Court of Justice Proceedings
(a) Edward Tinker, Kelly Judge, Michael Bondoc and Wesley James Mead, 2014 ONCJ 208, 120 O.R. (3d) 784; 2015 ONSC 2284, 20 C.R. (7th) 174
[21] Edward Tinker was 55 years old at the time of sentencing. His income, totalling $1,200 per month, came from Canada Pension Plan and Workers’ Compensation benefits. He had no savings. After his rent and costs of medication, Mr. Tinker was left with $170 per month to pay for food, clothing, utilities, and incidentals. He pleaded guilty to one count of uttering threats and one count of breach of probation. He was sentenced to 26 days, to be served intermittently, followed by 2 years’ probation. He faced a $200 victim surcharge.
[22] Kelly Judge was 51 years old at sentencing. She was legally blind and a recovering alcoholic who also suffered from depression and bipolar disorder. Her monthly income was $831 from Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefits. Her rent of $800 per month left her with $31 per month for other expenses. Ms. Judge pleaded guilty to assault and one count of uttering threats. She was sentenced to a suspended sentence and 18 months’ probation, plus a victim surcharge of $200.
[23] Michael Bondoc was, at the date of sentencing, 24 years old and unemployed. He pleaded guilty to two counts of breach of probation for which he was sentenced to 33 days in custody in addition to the 27 he had already spent in detention. He faced a $200 victim surcharge.
[24] Wesley James Mead was 46 years old at the date of sentencing. He struggled with mental illness and supported his spouse and child through Ontario Disability Support Program benefits. Mr. Mead pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public, one count of assault, and one count of assault resisting arrest. He was sentenced to a suspended sentence and probation for a period of 18 months, plus a $300 surcharge.
[25] All four of these appellants challenged s. 737 of the Code on the basis of ss. 7 , 12 , and 15 of the Charter . Only their ss. 7 and 12 claims were argued before this Court. Beninger J. for the Ontario Court of Justice found that the mandatory victim surcharge infringed s. 7 by arbitrarily and disproportionately violating the offenders’ security of the person. This violation was not saved by s. 1. That holding was overturned on appeal to the Superior Court, per Glass J., who determined that neither s. 7 nor s. 12 were violated by the surcharge.
(b) Garrett Eckstein, 2015 ONCJ 222, [2015] O.J. No. 1869 (QL)
[26] Garrett Eckstein was 19 years old and unemployed at the time of sentencing. He pleaded guilty to the offences of robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, and breach of probation. The Crown proceeded by indictment on all charges. Consequently, in addition to a sentence of 8 months’ incarceration and 18 months’ probation, the sentencing judge was obliged to impose a $600 mandatory surcharge.
[27] Mr. Eckstein argued that, if not in his own case, the victim surcharge violates the s. 12 right of a reasonable hypothetical offender like the one in R. v. Michael, 2014 ONCJ 360, 121 O.R. (3d) 244. Michael, which declared the surcharge to be inapplicable because it constituted cruel and unusual punishment, had been decided a few months previously by Eckstein’s sentencing judge, Paciocco J. Between that case an