Accused pleaded guilty to fraud from her employer. In addition to a s. 738 CC restitution order, Crown sought an order under s 462.37(3) CC for a “fine in lieu of forfeiture” for the amount lost, with jail time in default of payment. The Crown also asked the Court to “make an order that the Restitution Order take priority over payment of the fine, and a further order that the fine be reduced by any amount paid toward the Restitution Order”. Object of this scheme was to ensure victim received restitution payment.
Held: Court declined to grant the orders sought.
“[I]f Parliament intended to give Courts the power to impose jail in default of a debtor paying restitution, it would have been very simple for Parliament to have expressly given that power but Parliament has not done so. The cocktail of orders sought by the Crown in this case is quite clearly an invitation for the Court to do something indirectly that it cannot do directly.” Accused fell “squarely within the example set out in Lavigne [2006 SCC 10] regarding when a fine order would not be appropriate”; a fine order would be inconsistent with the spirit of the objectives in Part XII.2 CC.
L. McClean – Defence Counsel