Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
Just$1.99
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); }

Judges in several provinces have refused to levy the federal government’s mandatory surcharge for convicted criminals.

PETER POWER/THE GLOBE AND MAIL

A Quebec judge says the judiciary can and should confront the federal government's mandatory financial penalty for convicted criminals, and he has set out how do so in a manner that respects judges' obligation to follow the law.

The proper response when faced with offenders who are poor, Quebec Court Judge Patrick Healy said in a ruling this week, is to fine them something very small, like $5, which makes the required 30 per cent surcharge manageable, at $1.50, and avoids costs that would otherwise amount to hundreds of dollars.

A Quebec prosecutor had told Justice Healy he must impose a $400 surcharge on a homeless aboriginal man, Richard Cloud, who was convicted of two crimes. Justice Healy, a former McGill University law professor, wrote a 10,000-word ruling devoted solely to explaining why he must not.

Story continues below advertisement

"Within the measure allowed by law, the surcharge must be applied with due regard for proportionality," he wrote.

Justice Healy's ruling is the most thorough judicial challenge to the victim fine surcharge, which became mandatory in late October, that has come to public attention. The Conservative government says the mandatory penalty goes toward victim services, and is part of an effort to alter the justice system's balance between the offender and the victim.

Paloma Aguilar, a spokesman for Justice Minister Peter MacKay, said she could not comment on the specifics of the case, but said that before the surcharge became mandatory, judges often waived it. "The perspective of victims has been brushed aside for far too long," she said.

Judges in several provinces have refused to level the surcharge in many cases involving indigent offenders. Sometimes, judges have given 50 years to pay it, declined to order a surcharge, or opted for an approach similar to Justice Healy's. One Ontario judge ruled the surcharge unconstitutional. That ruling and two others in Ontario have been appealed by the province's Attorney-General's Ministry.

Mr. Cloud, who receives $600 a month in social assistance, had pleaded guilty in a plea deal in which he was sentenced to three months in jail and two years probation for knocking over a convenience-store display and assaulting a person with a stone.

Under the Conservative government's Increasing Offenders' Accountability to Victims Act, criminals must pay a $200 charge for each indictable (serious) offence, and $100 for each summary (less serious) one – unless a judge orders a fine, in which case the victim surcharge is an additional 30 per cent.

Justice Healy explained why his approach is the only permissible option for judges: Imposing the $200 surcharge on the two counts, and allowing a delay, would extend the sentence intolerably. Imposing the surcharge, finding Mr. Cloud in default and ordering a jail sentence of five days – with a reduction of the agreed-on sentence of three months by that same five days – would be disingenuous. Only by imposing a small fine and surcharge could he create a fair sentence, he said.

Story continues below advertisement

"I am bound … by the oath and dignity of my office," and cannot disobey the law, Justice Healy wrote. But he said judges still need to interpret the surcharge law in a way that conforms to Canada's sentencing principles. "The imposition of a surcharge of $400 on Mr. Cloud would serve no principle or objective of sentencing."

Mr. Cloud, 41, originally from New Brunswick, was raised in foster homes, and has been in and out of prison for 22 years. Justice Healy said applying the mandatory surcharge would violate sentencing principles of fairness that deal specifically with aboriginal peoples. But he said the penalty would also be unfair to non-aboriginal, indigent offenders.

Yves Vaillancourt, a lawyer who represented Mr. Cloud, praised the ruling, and said he hopes it serves as a model for other Quebec judges. Other indigent offenders in Montreal have been jailed several days when they could not pay the surcharge, he said.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies