R v Larocque

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

1. Does the mandatory victim surcharge constitute "punishment" under section 12 of the Charter?
2. If so, does it constitute cruel and unusual punishment for impoverished offenders?
3. 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.