R. v. LeRiche, 2018 NLSC 145

court crest IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR GENERAL DIVISION Citation : R. v. LeRiche , 2018 NLSC 145 Date : June 28, 2018 Docket : 201806G0051 Her Majesty The Queen v. Michelle LeRiche Before: Justice Sandra R. Chaytor Reasons for Judgment Given Orally Place of Hearing: Grand Bank, Newfoundland and Labrador Date of Hearing: June 21, 2018 Date of Oral Judgment: June 28, 2018

Summary: A volunteer treasurer of a minor hockey association was convicted of one count of theft over $5000 and three counts of forgery. The Court rejected the Defence proposal of a 90-day sentence to be served intermittently and imposed a sentence of 5 months incarceration followed by a 2 year probationary period. In imposing the sentence, the Court considered the mitigating factors including that the offender pleaded guilty at an early stage and had no criminal record, and the aggravating factors including the breach of trust involved in the commission of the offences and the calculated nature of the offences.

The Court also considered the paramountcy of the principles of deterrence and denunciation in such cases. A full restitution order was imposed.

Appearances: Alison J. Manning Appearing on behalf of the CrownMarcus A. Evans, Q.C. Appearing on behalf of the Offender Authorities Cited: CASES CONSIDERED: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64; R. v. Burton, 2012 PESC 2; R. v. Naugler, 2011 NSPC 68; R. v. Biletsky, 2016ABPC 261; R. v. Husband, 2013 ABPC 67; R. v. Judd, 2012 BCPC 7; R. v. Macynski, 2015 ONCJ 17; R. v. Edmunds, 2012 NLCA 26;R. v. Hewitt, 2004 NLSCTD 65; R. v. Mallard, 2014 ABPC 25; R. v. Cullihall (2015), 361 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 179, [2015] N.J. No. 18(Prov. Ct.); R. v. Gray, [1995] O.J. No. 92, 26 W.C.B. (2d) 209 (C.A.); R. v.

W.(J.) (1997), (ON CA), 33 O.R. (3d)225, [1997] O.J. No. 1380 (C.A.); R. v. Middleton, 2009 SCC 21. STATUTES CONSIDERED: Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46; Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Chaytor, J.: INTRODUCTION [1] Michelle LeRiche was the volunteer treasurer with United Towns Minor Hockey Association (the “Association”). TheAssociation is a voluntary organization that operates the minor hockey program for the towns of Grand Bank and Fortune,Newfoundland and Labrador. Ms.

LeRiche’s duties included paying the Association’s bills, preparing its financial statements, andresponsibility for monies received from a team fundraising event. Over the course of approximately a two-year period, Ms. LeRiche stole$53,046.38 from the Association. Her actions included: forging the signature of the Association’s president to cheques on at least 10occasions; writing and depositing 35 cheques made payable to her or her fiancé; and keeping for herself the proceeds of the fundraiser.She covered up her actions by falsifying the Association’s financial reports for two years. [2] Ms.

LeRiche was charged with 8 counts in relation to her actions. On April 19, 2018, she pled guilty to the following fourcharges: 1) One count that between September 1, 2015 and September 15, 2017, she did steal money from United Towns Minor HockeyAssociation exceeding $5,000 contrary to section 322(1)(

a) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (the “Code”) andpunishable by

Section 334(a); and 2) Three counts of forgery contrary to

Section 367 of Code in that:

a) between September 1, 2015 and September 15, 2017, she did knowingly make false documents – cheques payable to herselfwith the forged signature of Robert Clements with intent that they may be acted upon as genuine;

b) between the same time period, she did knowingly make a false document – a financial report for the Association for the 2015-2016 hockey season with intent that it be acted upon as genuine; and

c) between the same time period, she did knowingly make a false document – a financial report for the Association for 2016-2017 hockey season with intent that it be acted upon as genuine. [3] Based upon an agreed statement of facts, I was satisfied that the Crown had proven Ms. LeRiche’s guilt with respect to eachof the four counts beyond a reasonable doubt. The remaining four counts were withdrawn by the Crown subsequent to the convictionsbeing entered on the four counts. issue

[ 4 ] What is an appropriate sentence to be imposed upon Ms. LeRiche? SENTENCING PARAMETERS AND PRINCIPLES [ 5 ] In arriving at an appropriate sentence, consideration must be given to the principles of sentencing set out in

section 718 of the Code : denunciation; deterrence, both general and specific; separation of the offender from society, where necessary; reparation to both victim and the community; rehabilitation; and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders for the harm they have caused. [ 6 ] The principle of totality must also be considered to ensure that a sentence is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Proportionality is determined both on an individual basis and by comparison with sentences imposed for similar offences under comparable circumstances.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER Background and Pre-Sentence Report [ 7 ] In reaching this decision, I have considered Ms. LeRiche’s personal circumstances. A Pre-Sentence Report dated June 19, 2018 was completed to assist with this sentencing. The information that follows is contained in that report. Ms. LeRiche is currently 42 years of age. She originates from Port aux Basques, but has resided in Fortune for the past 10 years. She is a single mother of 2 sons, aged 18 and 13 years, both of whom reside with her. Her sons have learning challenges. She is engaged to be married but Ms.

LeRiche is uncertain as to the durability of the relationship at this point in time. [ 8 ] Ms. LeRiche does not have any immediate family in this area. She has a close relationship, however, with her two sisters: one of whom resides in Deer Lake and the other in St. John’s. Her sister, Tara, indicates that Ms. LeRiche has family support and that they are willing to help her make some positive lifestyle changes. Ms. LeRiche has indicated that she is considering leaving the Fortune area to relocate to either St. John’s or Deer Lake presumably to be close to these members of her family. [ 9 ] Ms.

LeRiche reports having grown up in a stable home environment. In terms of trauma in her past, she reports having been the victim of sexually inappropriate behavior as a child and having been the victim of a sexual assault as an adult. [ 10 ] Ms. LeRiche graduated high school with academic standing. She also completed some post-secondary training including a one- year legal administrative assistant program through a community college. Ms. LeRiche has worked for most of her years since having moved to this area and has a relatively strong employment history.

As of June 2018, she has been employed, on a part-time basis, in a babysitting position for two school-aged children. She expects to work full time over the summer. Prior to obtaining this employment, she had been unemployed for 16 months. She had previously been employed for over three years on a full-time basis, but left this employment in December 2016 of her own volition because she did not feel appreciated by her employer. She received employment insurance benefits from that employment until January 2018.

She has also been employed in the past in office administration and homecare positions and had worked for a six year period while residing in Nova Scotia prior to relocating to this province. [ 11 ] At the time of commission of the offences, Ms. LeRiche says she was struggling with gambling and cocaine addictions. She had a gambling problem over 10 years ago and in 2005, attended an inpatient addictions program at the Humberwood clinic in Corner Brook. She states that her criminal actions can be attributed to the fact that she needed money to support her addictions. [ 12 ] Ms.

LeRiche has expressed remorse for her actions and is ashamed of what she has done. Criminal Record [ 13 ] I have considered the fact that Ms. Le Riche does not have a prior criminal record. A review of the case law demonstrates that a lack of a criminal record is not uncommon in cases involving thefts where the person was in a position of trust. This is not surprising as it would be less likely for someone with a criminal record to be placed in a position of trust. Guilty Plea [ 14 ] I have taken into account that Ms.

LeRiche pled guilty at an early stage of these proceedings which has saved witnesses from having to testify and valuable Court time and resources. Ms. LeRiche also expressed remorse for her actions when she addressed the Court. VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT [ 15 ] A victim impact statement was filed on behalf of the Association pursuant to

section 722 of the Code . Prior to Ms. LeRiche’s offences, the Association was in a stable financial situation with money in the bank. As a result of her actions, the Association was left in a deficit position and owing money to both the Town of Fortune and Hockey Newfoundland and Labrador. The volunteer members of the Association, particularly its executive members, are doing their best to continue to operate so as to provide a minor hockey program for the children of this area. They are doing so, however, under significant stress as Ms.

LeRiche’s actions have caused parents to question the executive’s decisions and has put the Association under intense scrutiny. There has been a loss of trust. The Association is concerned about their ability to continue to operate minor hockey in this region.

Parents are being asked to fundraise over and above the usual level and there has been an additional financial burden placed on the families and community members, in general, as they are being asked to contribute to the Association to keep the hockey program viable. [ 16 ] The Association has struggled to recover from the financial impact as well as the loss of trust that has been caused by Ms. LeRiche’s actions.

The money stolen was raised through fundraising efforts of the parents and volunteers and also included money from the registration fees paid by parents. [ 17 ] Although I have considered the impact of the offences on the Association, I must balance my consideration of this with the

other principles of sentencing. CROWN’S POSITION [ 18 ] The Crown asks that Ms. LeRiche be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with a two-year period of probation and a restitution order. DEFENCE POSITION [ 19 ] The Defence proposed a 90-day sentence to be served intermittently with a three-year period of probation and that it be a condition of probation that she pay $250 per month to the Association so as to repay a portion of the funds stolen. Serving the sentence intermittently would allow her to continue to work and continue to care for her younger son.

She has child care arrangements for weekends if she could serve her sentence intermittently. ANALYSIS [ 20 ] To determine an appropriate sentence, I must begin with what is statutorily prescribed with respect to each of the offences for which Ms. LeRiche has been convicted. The maximum punishment for theft over $5000 pursuant to

section 334 (

a) of the Code is 10 years’ imprisonment. The maximum sentence for forgery under

section 367 of the Code for an indictable offence is also 10 years imprisonment. [ 21 ] I have also considered the range of sentence imposed for these offences in the cases with similar fact situations submitted to me by counsel. In considering a range of sentence, however, I am also guided by the words of Wagner, J. in R. v. Lacasse , 2015 SCC 64 at paragraph 60 where he noted that sentencing ranges are primarily guidelines and not hard and fast rules. [ 22 ] In R. v. Burton , 2012 PESC 2 , a 48-year-old accused, with no prior criminal record, had been the manager of a provincial sports team.

She was convicted of having stolen and defrauded the PEI government of $8,000 - $10,000 earmarked for the team. The court determined that a conditional sentence was inappropriate. In determining an appropriate sentence, the court considered the breach of trust involved and that she expressed no remorse for her actions. Deterrence was the governing principle. She was sentenced to 4 months’ incarceration and $4,000 restitution. [ 23 ] In R. v. Naugler , 2011 NSPC 68 , a 23-year-old former employee of a university faculty association was convicted of defrauding the association and committing forgery.

She pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud over $5,000 and one count of uttering forged documents. The amount of funds involved were in excess of $136,000. She was sentenced to 8 months’ incarceration and 12 months’ probation. The sentencing judge refused to impose a conditional sentence noting the sophisticated plot and the manipulation of financial statements as well as the forged signatures.

There was also evidence adduced to show that she was not necessarily under the dire financial circumstances that she claimed to have been due to the care of her father, and that she had undertaken an expensive home renovation during the relevant time period. [ 24 ] In R. v. Biletsky , 2016 ABPC 261 , a 42-year-old married father of two children, was in an executive position of a non-profit community association. He drafted six fraudulent cheques to himself. He was convicted of defrauding the association of over $17,000 contrary to section 380(1) (

a) of the Code . The court rejected an intermittent sentence which would have allowed Mr. Biletsky to work at a new job and pay restitution. A sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment was imposed along with a restitution order. [ 25 ] In R. v. Husband , 2013 ABPC 67 , a 44-year-old female was convicted of one count of breach of

section 334 (a). The theft involved almost $80,000 from her employer, a non-profit organization. She was sentenced to 10 months’ incarceration. [ 26 ] In R. v. Judd , 2012 BCPC 7 , the offender was a mother of a seven-year-old child and volunteer with a soccer club whose duties included responsibility for the club’s finances. Over a period of five years, she stole over $200,000 from the club by writing cheques payable to herself and her husband or by taking cash. She also fraudulently altered bank statements.

In imposing a sentence of two years’ incarceration and a restitution order for the full amount, the court noted the serious breach of trust and the planning and manipulation used to execute the crimes. [ 27 ] In R. v. Macynski , 2015 ONCJ 17 , the 67-year-old offender was the treasurer of a church fund over which she had signing authority. She wrote cheques to herself over a three-year period totaling in excess of $86,000. She pled guilty to theft over $5,000.

The court rejected a conditional sentence because of the breach of trust and sentenced the offender to 6 months’ incarceration followed by three years’ probation and ordered restitution. The offender claimed that she was financially burdened by her husband’s health concerns, but the court did not accept that as she continued to steal after her husband’s death. Aggravating factors included the breach of trust and the effect on the church. [ 28 ] In R. v.

Edmunds , 2012 NLCA 26 , the court upheld a decision of the Mental Health Court (a Division of Provincial Court) which imposed a conditional discharge and 24 months’ probation for convictions on one count of breach of trust by a public officer contrary to

section 122 of the Code and two counts of theft under $5,000. The offender was a correctional officer at the time of the offences and had stolen money from inmates. It is noted, however, that there was medical evidence adduced in that case as to the mental health of the offender. [ 29 ] In R. v. Hewitt , 2004 NLSCTD 65 , the offender, while employed as the town clerk for the Town of Point May, stole over $30,000 from her employer. She was convicted on one count of theft over $5,000 and one count of fraud as well as 43 counts of uttering forged documents.

Handrigan, J. imposed a conditional sentence of 7 months followed by 2 years’ probation and a full restitution order. [ 30 ] In R. v. Mallard , 2014 ABPC 25 , the offender was convicted of two charges: one under

section 334 (

a) of the Code , and one under

section 334(

b) of the Code . Both theft charges involved stealing from her employer. The

section 334 (

a) charge involved a charity hospital foundation. The offender had no previous criminal record, had been the victim of sexual assault and was suffering from post- traumatic stress disorder as well as depression. A gambling problem and her emotional problems were factors that led to her criminal

behavior. The offender was sentenced to 90 days’ imprisonment to be served intermittently. [31] R. v. Cullihall (2015), 361 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 179, [2015] N.J. No. 18 (Prov. Ct.), the offender, while employed as anadministrative assistant by a health board authority, stole from her employer over $7,000 of funds that she was responsible formaintaining. Judge Gorman imposed a sentence of 90 days’ incarceration served on an intermittent basis and a period of 12 months’probation. [32]

Section 718.2 of the Code requires a court that imposes a sentence to take into consideration any relevant aggravating ormitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender including evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused aposition of trust. [33] There are several aggravating factors in this case that I have taken into consideration: 1) The offences involved an abuse of Ms.

LeRiche’s position of trust with the Association; 2) The amount stolen was significant particularly given the circumstances of this volunteer organization; 3) This was not an impulsive crime; rather, there was a calculated nature to her offences.

The thefts were planned, deliberateand involved more than 35 repeated instances of transfers of money to herself or to her fiancé in addition to stealing the money from thefundraising event; 4) There was manipulation and steps taken to deceive and cover up her actions through falsifying of the financial records andthe forgery of the president’s signature; 5) The thefts extended over a relatively lengthy period of time; and 6) Ms.

LeRiche did not report the thefts and only admitted to her actions after the Association had already become suspiciousand aware there were funds missing. [34] With respect to mitigating circumstances, I have considered Ms. LeRiche’s personal circumstances, that she pled guilty at anearly stage, the fact that she has no prior criminal record, has expressed remorse, co-operated with the authorities, and that she hasoffered to repay the Association at least a portion of the money. [35] Although Ms.

LeRiche attributes her actions to needing money to support her addictions, I do not fully accept this explanationas it is noted that these thefts began while she was employed in a full-time position, but she quit this employment of her own volitionbecause she said she did not feel appreciated by her employer. She continued to steal from the Association after having quit her job.

It isdifficult to entirely accept her explanation for her actions as if she was stealing out of need to feed a gambling and drug addiction, whywould she quit her employment and thereby further limit her financial resources? [36] The Defence emphasized that in the past, conditional sentences were often imposed in similar circumstances of this caseinvolving theft over $5,000. As noted, however, by Derrick, J. in R. v.

Naugler (at paragraph 50), it was common for courts in breach oftrust cases to reject the option of a conditional sentence on the basis that it is not consistent with the principles of denunciation anddeterrence. Furthermore, it must also be borne in mind that although a conditional sentence is not served in an institution, it isnonetheless a period of incarceration. [37] In any event, a conditional sentence is no longer an option.

Section 742.1(f)(viii) of the Code excludes from consideration of aconditional sentence an offence of theft over $5,000 prosecuted by way of indictment. Nonetheless, I must consider the least restrictivemeasure of punishment that is appropriate in the circumstances. Rehabilitation is also an important consideration. Ms. LeRiche appearsto be a good candidate for rehabilitation: she has admitted her mistakes; she has some family support; and she also has her two sons toparent. She has not, however, undertaken any formal rehabilitation to date. [38] I have also considered reparation. It is noted that Ms.

LeRiche had not repaid any of the money or made arrangements to do soup to the time of sentencing. As part of the Defence sentencing proposal, she has indicated that she would be agreeable to repaying to theAssociation $250 per month over a three-year period of probation. It is important that any sentence imposed, promote in her a sense ofresponsibility for her actions and recognition of the harm that has been caused to the Association.

This was a substantial sum of moneyfor a small volunteer organization which promotes hockey for children and youth in this area. [39] With respect to offences that involve breach of trust, deterrence and denunciation are of paramount consideration. In R. v. Gray,[1995] O.J.

No. 92, 26 W.C.B. (2d) 209 (C.A.) at paragraph 32, the Ontario Court of Appeal stated, “… there are few crimes where theaspect of deterrence is more significant [than fraud cases].” The reason being that it is not a crime of impulse and the offender is often aknowledgeable person who should be aware of the consequences. [40] Similarly, in R. v. W.(J.) (1997), (ON CA), 33 O.R. (3d) 225, [1997] O.J.

No. 1380 (C.A.), Rosenberg, J.stated at paragraph 51: General deterrence, as the principal objective animating the refusal to impose a conditional sentence, should be reserved for those whoare likely to be affected by a general deterrent effect. Large scale well-planned fraud by persons in positions of trust… would seem to beone of those offences. [41] There has been some degree of media coverage of this case. Ms. LeRiche resides in a small community and, no doubt, has

suffered public humiliation and embarrassment which could be considered to be some deterrence for others. This is not the equivalent, however, to denunciation by the Court of behavior that involves breach of trust in the commission of an offence. [ 42 ] Overall, I must balance the message that needs to be sent to deter similar-minded individuals from committing this type of offence while, at the same time, recognizing that sentencing is an individual process and give consideration to what will assist Ms.

LeRiche in her rehabilitation efforts to become as she stated “a better person” than the one she was when she committed those offences. [ 43 ] The Defence seeks 90 days’ incarceration and asks that the sentence be completed on an intermittent basis. Ms. LeRiche has support from a family friend who is also her employer. Ms. LeRiche babysits her friend’s children and her friend would be willing to care for Ms. LeRiche’s son on weekends, but would not be able do so during the weekdays. An intermittent sentence served on weekends would allow Ms.

LeRiche to continue in her babysitting position during the week and care for her own son and, then, her employer/friend would care for her son on the weekends while she serves her sentence. [ 44 ] In addressing the Court, Ms. LeRiche expressed regret in that her actions deprived her sons of what they loved the most – playing hockey. With all due respect, her actions deprived her sons of much more.

Although, no doubt, they were deprived of the socialization and other benefits that come from playing hockey, they were more importantly deprived of the positive role model that they should have had in their parent especially during their teenage years. Ms. LeRiche expressed concern for the care of her children, particularly her younger son, if she were to be incarcerated other than on weekends. Although that is a factor that may be relevant to take into consideration ( R. v.

Middleton , 2009 SCC 21 ), and I have done so, in the circumstances of this case, it does not outweigh the need to impose a sentence that will address the principles of denunciation and deterrence which are of primary importance. [ 45 ] The Court’s authority to order that a period of incarceration be served on an intermittent basis is governed by section 732(1) of the Code . An intermittent sentence can only be given if the period of incarceration is 90 days or less. [ 46 ] In R. v.

Mallard , an intermittent sentence was imposed in circumstances where the offender was convicted of theft from her employer on three occasions. It is noted, however, that the sum of money was much less than in this case and more importantly that there were no convictions for forgery. [ 47 ] In R. v.

Biletsky , the court, in rejecting an intermittent sentence which would have allowed the accused to continue to work at a new job and pay restitution, noted several aggravating factors which are also present in this case: the deliberate nature of the offence, the breach of trust involved, and the use of forged signatures to commit the offence. In that case, the amount of money stolen and the number of fraudulent cheques involved was significantly less than in this case. It is also noted that, similar to this case, the court did not fully accept the offender’s explanation for his actions.

He was sentenced to 12 months’ incarceration. It is noted, however, that Mr. Biletsky had a prior criminal record for tax evasion and did not co-operate with the authorities. [ 48 ] In putting forward its position, the Defence relied heavily on the Cullihall case. There is an important distinction, however, between Cullihall and this case in that Ms. Cullihall was convicted of one count of theft over $5000. There were no convictions for forgery. Ms. LeRiche stands convicted of three forgery counts in addition to the conviction for theft over $5000. Furthermore, the amount of money stolen by Ms.

LeRiche was substantially more than that of Ms. Cullihall, and Ms. LeRiche stole from a small volunteer organization, as opposed to a large employer which may be better positioned to absorb the loss. It is also noteworthy that in Cullihall , Judge Gorman, in imposing a sentence of 90 days’ incarceration to be served intermittently for the one count of theft over $5000, stated that this was a lenient sentence. A sentence of 90 days’ imprisonment served intermittently for Ms.

LeRiche, who has been convicted of one count of theft over $5000 and three counts of forgery, would be far too lenient to satisfy the principles of deterrence and denunciation which are of primary importance in this case. A longer period of incarceration is required. [ 49 ] Overall, having analyzed the case law with respect to sentences imposed in similar cases, and having considered Ms. LeRiche’s circumstances as well as the circumstances related to these offences, I conclude that an appropriate sentence is 5 months’ incarceration for each offence to run concurrently followed by a probationary period of 2 years.

DISPOSTION AND SENTENCE [ 50 ] Ms. LeRiche, please stand while I impose your sentence. You are hereby sentenced as follows: 1) with respect to the one count of breach of

section 334(a), five months’ incarceration; and 2) with respect to each of the three counts of breach of

section 367, you are sentenced to five months’ incarceration to be served concurrent to the first count and to each other. The total period of incarceration is five months. Probation [ 51 ] Following your release from jail, pursuant to section 731(1) of the Code , you are to be bound by a probation order for 2 years subject to the statutory conditions including: 1) Keep the peace and be of good behavior; 2) Appear before Court when required; 3) Notify the Court or the probation officer, in advance, of any change in name or address and promptly notify the Court or probation

officer of any change in employment; And the following conditions: 4) Report to and be under the supervision of a probation officer to whom you are to report within three working days after the making of the probation order and, thereafter, when required by the probation officer and in the manner directed by the probation officer; 5) Refrain from using, consuming, possessing or trafficking in all non-prescription drugs including all substances proscribed by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , S.C. 1996, c. 19; 6) Comply with all requirements of the probation officer with respect to counseling or other rehabilitative measures deemed appropriate by the probation officer to address any issue of substance abuse or gambling; and 7) Not enter any licensed establishment where there are video lottery terminals/machines.

Restitution [ 52 ] The Defence proposed a three-year period of probation, a condition of which would be that Ms. LeRiche pay $250 per month to the Association. Over the three-year period, this would equate to $9,000 or less than 20% of the funds stolen. [ 53 ] The Crown sought a restitution order for the full amount of funds stolen. Currently, Ms. LeRiche’s ability to repay the full amount appears to be limited and it is recognized that having been convicted of these offences, her employment prospects may be further restricted.

She has been able, however, to find gainful employment since being charged and she is still relatively young. She also has post-secondary education and has had a relatively significant employment history and contends that she is committed to improving her situation. She may find her financial circumstances will improve in the future. [ 54 ] Therefore, I order that Ms. LeRiche pay restitution of $53,046.38 to the United Towns Minor Hockey Association. This Order is made pursuant to

section 738 of the Code and may be enforced under

section 741 of the Code as if it were a judgment obtained in civil proceedings. Victim Surcharge [ 55 ] A victim surcharge pursuant to section 737(2) (b)(ii) of the Code , in the amount of $200 per offence is ordered and is to be paid within 30 days of this Judgment. _____________________________ Sandra R. Chaytor Justice