R v Tinker

R. v. Tinker, Judge, Bondoc & Mead

2015 ONSC 2284
Ontario Superior Court of Justice — Justice B. Glass | April 9, 2015

Background

Four defendants with serious financial hardships were sentenced on various Criminal Code charges. Edward Tinker, 55, lived on $1,200 monthly from CPP and Workers' Compensation, with only $170 left after rent and medication. Kelly Judge, 51 and legally blind, had $31 per month after expenses from her $831 disability pension. Michael Bondoc was unemployed, and Wesley Mead supported his family on Ontario Disability Support. All pled guilty to summary conviction offences carrying mandatory $100 victim surcharges per charge — totalling $200-$300 each.

The trial judge found that imposing mandatory victim surcharges on these financially vulnerable defendants violated section 7 of the Charter (life, liberty and security of the person). The Crown appealed, arguing that victim surcharges aren't punishment at all, just a "consequence of conviction" like DNA orders.

Issues

1. Are victim surcharges a form of fine or criminal punishment?
2. Do mandatory victim surcharges violate section 7 Charter rights when imposed on impoverished defendants?

The Nature of Victim Surcharges

Justice Glass ruled that victim surcharges under section 737 of the Criminal Code are not fines or criminal punishments. Instead, they're simply "a sum of money established to be a consequence of breaking the law" — like DNA orders, they're requirements flowing from conviction, not sanctions in their own right. The judge distinguished surcharges from actual penalties, noting they go into a pool to help crime victims rather than punish offenders.

Even if surcharges were punishment, Glass found they weren't "grossly disproportionate." He applied the test from R. v. Nur, considering factors like the gravity of offences, defendants' characteristics, and the actual impact. With the Crown consenting to 2-year payment periods, defendants would pay just $1.92-$2.88 per week — manageable even for those with very modest means.

Charter Analysis

The court rejected the section 7 Charter challenge. Following Canada v. Bedford, Justice Glass found that victim surcharge provisions aren't "inherently bad laws" that arbitrarily or disproportionately impact life, liberty, or security of the person. The legislation includes payment extension mechanisms under section 737(8)(d), and defendants who don't pay become "authors of their own misfortune" rather than victims of unconstitutional law.

The judge distinguished this case from minimum sentence cases like Nur, emphasizing that reasonable payment periods make surcharges manageable for even the most financially vulnerable defendants.

Key Takeaway

Victim surcharges are mandatory consequences of conviction, not negotiable punishments, but defendants can get extended payment periods.

If you're facing financial hardship, don't expect to escape victim surcharges entirely — but you can apply for extended payment terms under section 737(8)(d) of the Criminal Code, potentially stretching payments over years rather than the standard 30-60 days.