Her Majesty the Queen - v. -, 2012 SKPC 38

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2012 SKPC 038 Date: March 1, 2012 Information: 37290900 Location: Saskatoon _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Bradley Hache Appearing: Mr. R. Ritter For the Crown Mr. M. Vanstone For the Accused SENTENCING DECISION D.C. SCOTT , J Background [ 1 ] Mr. Hache entered guilty pleas to two charges that between October 22, 2010 and November 16, 2010, (1) by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, he did defraud Teachers’ Credit Union Place of a value exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to s. 380(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code ; and (2) he did steal money the property of Teachers’ Credit Union Place of a value exceeding $5,000.00 contrary to s. 334 (

a) of the Criminal Code .

[ 2 ] Sentencing submissions were made January 4, 2012. The Court had the benefit of a pre-sentence report prepared December 30, 2011; a victim impact statement made by Ms. Christina Johnson, a former accounting clerk at Teachers’ Credit Union Place; a letter from Mr. Tim Pollock, a problem gambling therapist with Mental Health and Addictions Services; and eight letters in support of Mr. Hache. Mr. Hache also read a letter of apology. A brief of law, with supporting cases, was filed by counsel for Mr. Hache. [ 3 ] It is not disputed that a jail sentence is warranted.

The question for this Court is whether a conditional sentence order, allowing the offender to serve his jail sentence in the community, is available and appropriate in this case. Circumstances of the Offences [ 4 ] At the time of the offences, Mr. Hache was employed by Teachers’ Credit Union Place (“TCU Place”), as the Director of Food and Beverage Services, a position of significant responsibility and trust. TCU Place is a publicly-funded entity owned by the City of Saskatoon. Mr.

Hache had been associated with TCU Place for a number of years in the catering department; in 2010 he was hired as Director. [ 5 ] Between October 22, 2010 and November 16, 2010, Mr. Hache misappropriated $143,452.30 belonging to his employer. He did so using a variety of methods. On four occasions he kept all or a portion of cash deposits. On five occasions he kept payment for coinage ordered by him for the bar. On two separate days he kept a total of thirteen cash advances on his business credit card. On the day of his resignation it was determined the cash float for which he was responsible, was short.

When confronted by his employer’s Chief Executive Officer about the missing funds, on November 15, 2010, Mr. Hache denied any knowledge. He resigned the next day. [ 6 ] An extensive investigation was undertaken and an audit completed to verify the loss. Police investigators also determined that during the period from October 3, 2010 to November 7, 2010, gambling winnings in the amount of $421,555.00 were paid to Mr. Hache by a local casino, which he lost by subsequent gambling. [ 7 ] Mr. Hache was arrested on July 28, 2011.

Guilty pleas were entered on both counts, October 4, 2011. [ 8 ] The City’s insurer covered the loss, less the deductible of $10,000.00. As a result of the claim, the insurer has increased the City’s deductible to $25,000.00 on future losses. Circumstances of the Offender [ 9 ] Mr. Hache is 42 years of age and married with three children, ages 6, 10 and 11 years. He was born in Ontario and raised with four siblings, by both parents. Mr. Hache considered his upbringing to have been unstable.

His family relocated a number of times and he witnessed physical altercations between his parents when they drank alcohol. [ 10 ] Mr. Hache attended university in New Brunswick and subsequently moved to Saskatoon with his wife. His father passed away and in October 2010, his brother died of cancer, both of which had a significant impact on Mr. Hache. [ 11 ] His brother’s death also had financial ramifications for Mr. Hache. His brother had secured the mortgage for Mr. Hache’s family home. Before he passed away, his brother wanted Mr.

Hache to arrange his own financing, so his widow would not be left with that financial burden. [ 12 ] Mr. Hache takes medication prescribed by his family doctor for anxiety. Neither alcohol nor drug use have been issues for Mr. Hache for many years. Mr. Hache reports having had suicidal thoughts around the time he resigned from his employment at TCU Place.

[ 13 ] Mr. Hache is actively involved in his church and the community. He has coached sports and been active in his children’s school. While employed with TCU Place, he arranged for excess food from his department to be redirected to a local charity to feed inner-city residents. [ 14 ] Mr. Hache has been consistently employed, primarily in the hospitality industry. Following his resignation from TCU Place, he was employed for a marketing firm for six months and then was unemployed until October 2011. He is currently employed as a steam operator in the oil patch, near Kindersley.

Until the offences surfaced, he had been the sole provider for his family. Since December 2011, Mr. Hache’s wife has obtained full-time employment, as an administrative assistant, earning a modest income with no security of tenure beyond July 2012. Community Support [ 15 ] Eight letters of support were presented to the Court from Mr. Hache’s former co-workers, pastor, friends and family. The letters indicate Mr. Hache’s offending behaviour is out of character for him.

They describe him as a loving family man, hard worker, committed parishioner in his church, someone who is community-minded and compassionate toward others in distress. As an aside, the Court considers it inappropriate for Mr. Hache to have submitted a letter from his 11 year-old daughter. A child should not be placed in the position of urging the Court to not send a parent to jail. Gambling Problem [ 16 ] As an explanation for his offending behaviour, Mr. Hache states he has a gambling addiction. At the time of these offences, he spent between $2,000.00 and $8,000.00 daily on gambling.

The family had been experiencing financial difficulties. Nonetheless, Mr. Hache used funds loaned to them by his wife’s grandmother, the equity in his home, his pension and RRSP’s, and his children’s RESP’s to support his gambling, placing his family in further financial difficulty. In the past, his gambling was associated with alcohol and drug use, but he reports to having left that life behind in 2000, when his eldest daughter was born and he became involved with the church. [ 17 ] After being charged, Mr. Hache sought the services of Mr.

Tim Pollock, a problem gambling therapist with Mental Health and Addiction Services and initially met with Mr. Pollock in September 2011. In a letter, Mr. Pollock advised that in order to be diagnosed as having a pathological gambling disorder according to the DSM-IV, four of nine criteria must be met. Mr. Hache met seven of the nine criteria, although the criteria were neither identified nor explained to the Court. [ 18 ] The Crown takes issue with Mr. Pollock’s conclusion, asserting that only a psychiatrist can make a diagnosis using the DSM- IV. Further, the Crown notes that Mr.

Hache does not appear to have sought help for his gambling problem until September 2011, ten months after the thefts occurred and one month after he was charged. [ 19 ] Mr. Hache participated in phase one of a 32-hour gambling day program and follow-up sessions throughout September and October 2011, as well as one in December 2011. No further sessions had been scheduled, however Mr. Pollock recommended Mr. Hache participate in the second phase of the day program. Mr. Pollock advised that Mr. Hache showed steady improvement during his counselling sessions. The Court was advised by Mr. Hache’s counsel that Mr.

Hache intends to continue with counselling. [ 20 ] The pre-sentence report also references Mr. Hache’s participation in Gamblers’ Anonymous and family counselling. Mr. Hache reports not having gambled since his resignation from TCU Place. Pre-Sentence Report [ 21 ] According to Probation Services’ Primary Risk Assessment, Mr. Hache’s overall risk for general re-offending is assessed as low. The major risk factor is his financial situation, arising from debts attributable to gambling, along with his inability to meet monthly

expenses and creditors’ payments currently in arrears. [22] The pre-sentence report also explored the possibility of restitution. Given Mr. and Mrs. Hache’s current combined incomeand their debts and financial obligations, Mr. Hache estimates he could pay between $500.00 and $800.00 per month toward the amountowing. [23] While the pre-sentence report is generally positive, it suggests, given the large amount of loss and the impact on thecommunity, the Court might wish to consider a custodial sentence. Impact on the Victim [24] Mr.

Hache’s offences betrayed the trust of his employer and cast suspicion on his co-workers. New policies and procedureshave been implemented and employee morale has been affected. The loss was covered by the City’s insurer, except for the deductible of$10,000.00 which was increased as a result of the claim. Because Mr. Hache’s employer is a publicly-funded entity, the impact of hisoffences is passed on to the community at large. Mr. Hache’s conduct has also had a serious impact on his family’s finances, securityand general well-being.

Positions of the Crown and Defence [25] The Crown seeks a sentence of actual custody in the range of 18 months to two years less one day. Mr. Hache asks that he beallowed to serve his jail sentence in the community according to a conditional sentence order. Both the Crown and Defence agree withthe imposition of a restitution order.

Sentencing Principles [26] According to ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code, the objectives of sentencing are to denounce unlawful conduct, deter theoffender and others from committing offences, separate the offender from society where necessary, assist in the rehabilitation of theoffender, provide reparations for victims and promote a sense of responsibility in the offender.

A sentence must be proportionate to thegravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender; should be increased or decreased to reflect aggravating andmitigating factors; and be similar for similar offences, offenders and circumstances. All available sanctions other than imprisonment, thatare reasonable, should be considered. [27]

Section 742.1 of the Criminal Code establishes the preconditions for the imposition of a conditional sentence. The offencemust not be one specified as ineligible, the sentence to be imposed must be a jail term of less than two years, the Court must be satisfiedthat the safety of the community would not be endangered and the sentence would be consistent with the sentencing objectives in ss. 718to 718.2. [28] In R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 , [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61 (S.C.C.), the Supreme Court of Canada articulated the followingprinciples in relation to the conditional sentence, summarised at para. 127:

(1) Because the conditional sentence was enacted to reduce reliance on incarceration and increase the use of restorative justiceprinciples, it should be considered in all eligible cases;

(2) A conditional sentence is intended to be both punitive and rehabilitative. Punitive conditions will generally restrict the offender’sliberty; house arrest should be the norm, not the exception;

(3) In determining whether the safety of the community would be endangered by the offender serving his or her sentence in the

community, the Court should take into account (

a) the risk of re-offending; and (

b) the gravity of the damage that would ensue in theevent of re-offence;

(4) The Court should consider whether a conditional sentence is consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencingset out in ss. 718 to 718.2;

(5) A conditional sentence can provide significant denunciation and deterrence;

(6) A conditional sentence will better achieve the restorative objectives of rehabilitation, reparations to the victim and the community,and promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender and acknowledgment of the harm done to the victim and community; and

(7) A conditional sentence may be imposed even where there are aggravating circumstances, although the need for denunciation anddeterrence will increase in these circumstances. Case Law [29] A number of cases have considered whether the conditional sentence order is appropriate for offenders who have committedfraud and theft offences involving breach of trust. [30] In R. v. Moulton, 2001 SKQB 82, the offender, motivated by financial difficulties, defrauded a government-funded co-operative of which he was a member in an amount of $228,000.00.

The offender was married with two adult children and had nocriminal record. Although, not strictly a breach of trust, the Court found the offender betrayed the trust of his neighbours and friendswho were also members of the co-operative, and who were vulnerable victims. The Court found that the need for denunciation anddeterrence could be achieved through the terms of a conditional sentence for a period of two years less one day with strict conditions. [31] In R. v.

Fehr, 2001 SKCA 37, where a bookkeeper defrauded his employer of $220,000.00 over a period of ten years, theCourt of Appeal held that a two year conditional sentence was demonstrably unfit and replaced it with a term of incarceration foreighteen months. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal took into account the long term abuse of the offender’s authority and thatthe offences were motivated by greed rather than illness, such as severe gambling addiction. [32] In R. v.

Cassidy, 2011 ABCA 223 , [2011] A.J. 801 (C.A.), a nurse and volunteer treasurer of the hospital staff clubwho, motivated by financial difficulties, forged 160 signatures and wrote cheques to her benefit, stealing more than $41,000.00 from thefund, received a fifteen month conditional sentence. On appeal, the Court held that a sentence of actual incarceration is required in casesof this type unless there are exceptional circumstances. Here there were none and accordingly, the appropriate sentence would have been12 months incarceration. [33] In R. v.

Kovachik, 2010 ONCJ 479, an employee defrauded her small business employer of more than $100,000.00 over aperiod of thirty months, motivated to do so in an effort to assist her son who was addicted to street drugs. The Court imposed aconditional sentence, having regard to the exceptional circumstances in that case. [34] In R. v.

Webb, 2011 SKPC 181, where a nephew defrauded his uncle of his entire life savings, Jackson J. of this Courtdeclined to accept a joint submission by the Crown and Defence for a twelve month conditional sentence, imposing instead an eighteenmonth conditional sentence, with stringent conditions including house arrest. Had the Crown not secured repayment of the entire amount,the Court observed it was unlikely the offender would have avoided actual incarceration. [35] In R. v.

Gopher et al, 2006 SKCA 5, where three officials defrauded a First Nation of more than $1 million of treaty landentitlement trust funds, the Court of Appeal stated in replacing a conditional sentence with a term of incarceration in the penitentiary, atpara. 66:

This review of sentencing authorities indicates, not surprisingly, that there is no rigid set of rules which determines when a fraud orbreach of trust offence warrants jail or penitentiary time. It cannot be otherwise given that sentencing decisions must be geared to thespecific circumstances of the offender.

Nonetheless, the authorities do clearly reveal a general view that denunciation and deterrence arekey objectives in sentencing these types of offences and that substantial frauds by persons in positions of trust will generally attractsentences involving substantial periods of incarceration. [36] A number of authorities have also considered the relevance of an offender’s gambling addiction in sentencing in thesecircumstances. [37] In R. v. Horvath, (SKCA), [1997] S.J. No. 385, 152 Sask.

R. 277 (C.A.), a bank manager, who had beendiagnosed with a severe case of pathological gambling addiction, defrauded her employers of more than $200,000.00 over a two yearperiod through an elaborate scheme. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a sentence of two years less one day to be served inthe community. According to the Court, the offender’s gambling addiction mitigated somewhat the seriousness of the offence and calledfor a sentence with a rehabilitative component. [38] In R. v.

Oates, 2008 SKQB 274, an employee with a severe gambling addiction defrauded her employer, a governmentagency, of more than $400,000.00 by an elaborate scheme over a period of several years. Although the offender used the money tosupport her gambling addiction, paid $200,000.00 into Court prior to sentencing and expressed remorse, because of her related criminalrecord and the magnitude and premeditation of the offence, individual deterrence warranted a sentence of fifteen months incarceration.

These circumstances were distinguishable from Horvath, where the offender had significantly diminished her personal resources togamble. [39] In R. v. Harding, 2006 SKCA 118, a union employee, with no criminal record, defrauded his employer of more than$300,000.00, involving 900 transactions, over a period of six years. Following the discovery of the fraud, the offender was diagnosed ashaving a pathological gambling problem with a medium risk to re-offend.

The Court of Appeal overturned a two year conditionalsentence, indicating eighteen months incarceration would have been appropriate to better reflect the seriousness of the offences and theaccused’s involvement. The Court also found that the gambling problem was not as severe as in Horvath. [40] In R. v.

Salikin, 2011 SKPC 179, where a village administrator who defrauded the village of $65,000.00 over a period ofseveral years, motivated by financial difficulties and a gambling problem, the Court held a conditional sentence for 18 months withelectronic monitoring could satisfy the principles of denunciation and general deterrence. [41] The Court also considered the cases of R. v. Berntson, 2000 SKCA 47 and R. v.

Bunn, 2000 SCC 9 , [2000] 1 S.C.R.183. [42] Generally, in sentencing offenders for frauds involving a breach of trust, the courts have considered key factors to be theamount of the fraud, the period of time over which the fraud occurred, the sophistication of the plan, whether the victim was a publicbody, whether the offender had repaid any or all of the funds taken, the offender’s motivation, including evidence of gambling, drug,alcohol, psychological or financial problems and criminal record. Mitigating Circumstances [43] Mr. Hache has no criminal record.

He entered guilty pleas taking responsibility for the offences, thereby avoiding thenecessity of what could have been lengthy and complex proceedings. He offered an apology to City officials, staff and his family. Hehas taken on well-paying employment, even though it requires him to be away from his family, in order to earn the funds needed torepay his former employer. Mr. Hache has made a small payment relative to the amount taken, toward reimbursing his former employer. [44] Mr. Hache has a stable family and the support of his friends and church community. According to the pre-sentence report,Mr.

Hache is a low risk to re-offend. He has undertaken treatment for his gambling problem and has expressed an intention to continuewith such treatment.

Aggravating Circumstances [ 45 ] As an employee in a management role, Mr. Hache abused a position of trust. His actions cast suspicion on his colleagues at work, as a number of them were investigated in relation to this matter. His employer was a public-entity. The amount taken is significant. While the methods by which Mr. Hache misappropriated funds were not sophisticated, his actions required some planning and deliberation. The offences continued until Mr. Hache was approached by his employer, precipitating his resignation. [ 46 ] During the period between October 3, 2010 and November 7, 2010, Mr.

Hache received $421,555.00 in gambling winnings. He was in a position to more than repay his employer but failed to do so. No repayment was made until the date of sentencing submissions, in the amount of $5,250.00. The Court notes however that these funds come primarily from family and friends with no indication from Mr. Hache that he has an obligation to repay those individuals. Conclusion [ 47 ] Mr. Hache has pleaded guilty to fraud and theft, for which there is no mandatory minimum punishment prescribed by the Criminal Code . Neither probation nor a penitentiary term is appropriate.

The Crown is seeking a jail sentence of 18 months to two years less one day, which I consider to be the appropriate range of sentence. [ 48 ] I find Mr. Hache would not pose a danger to the community if he were allowed to serve his sentence in the community. He has no previous criminal convictions. He has strong family and community support. Drugs and alcohol are not a problem for him. He has undertaken treatment for his gambling disorder, which he intends to continue. The author of the pre-sentence report assessed Mr.

Hache as a low risk to re-offend. [ 49 ] The question then is whether a conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, as set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code . [ 50 ] Where a fraud involves a breach of trust, denunciation and deterrence are key objectives in sentencing ( Gopher , para. 66 ). Denunciation is the communication of society’s condemnation of the offender’s conduct.

Incarceration will generally provide more denunciation than a conditional sentence, although a conditional sentence can also significantly denounce the offending behaviour ( Proulx , para. 102 ). Incarceration may provide more deterrence than a conditional sentence, though judges should be wary of placing too much weight on deterrence when choosing between a conditional sentence and incarceration ( Proulx , para. 107 ).

A conditional sentence can achieve the principles of denunciation and deterrence. [ 51 ] A conditional sentence is generally better suited to achieving the restorative objectives of rehabilitation, reparations and promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender ( Proulx , para. 109 ; Moulton , para. 32 ). [ 52 ] In Proulx , Chief Justice Lamer specifically rejected the argument that conditional sentences should not be available for certain specific offences, including ‘serious fraud or theft’ ( Proulx , para. 79 ; Moulton , para. 27 ). [ 53 ] Mr. Hache’s offences are very serious.

He abused his position as a manager, responsible for the handling of public funds. He betrayed his employer’s trust and cast suspicion on his co-workers, who had respected and admired him. He brought humiliation upon his family and has placed them in a more precarious situation financially. [ 54 ] The amount taken is significant, but the offences do not appear to have been well-planned.

The offences do not amount to a “large scale fraud” as in Harding , Oates and Gopher , where the fraudulent conduct occurred undetected over a number of years, involved hundreds of transactions, and required a good deal of planning to execute. Mr. Hache’s conduct involved 23 transactions over a period of four weeks. Given his addiction, it is likely the offences would have continued had Mr. Hache not been confronted by the CEO, which prompted his resignation.

[ 55 ] As in Horvath , Harding and Oates , Mr. Hache was diagnosed with a pathological gambling disorder. Although Mr. Pollock’s letter did not provide a detailed explanation, he confirmed Mr. Hache met almost all of the criteria for gambling addiction. Unlike Harding and Oates , who used the funds to enhance their lifestyles, Mr. Hache depleted his family’s resources. Within a few weeks, he won and lost more than $400,000.00. Mr. Pollock’s assessment of Mr. Hache’s disorder is somewhat lacking in detail or context. However, Mr.

Hache’s dissipation of the family assets, along with the casino records indicates a serious problem gambler. The fact that Mr. Hache chose to continue gambling when he had secured significantly more money than necessary to extricate himself from his desperate straits, both at work and at home, underscores the depth of his addiction. Mr. Hache’s offending conduct was motivated by his gambling problem, rather than greed. Mr. Hache’s disorder appears to more closely resemble that in Horvath . [ 56 ] A conditional sentence order is a jail sentence.

A sufficiently restrictive conditional sentence can serve to condemn Mr. Hache’s abuse of his position of trust and deter such conduct in others. Regarding specific deterrence of Mr. Hache, the Court accepts he is a low risk to re-offend. The hardship, shame and humiliation heaped upon Mr. Hache’s family by his conduct will also serve as a deterrent to him. Mr. Hache’s continued treatment for his gambling disorder is necessary.

A conditional sentence can achieve rehabilitative objectives thereby protecting the community from potential future conduct of this nature and will assist in payment of reparations. [ 57 ] A significant amount of money is still owed to his former employer and its insurer. Mr. Hache has taken well-paying employment. Incarceration would at best delay and at worst nullify any realistic opportunity to pay restitution if he were not able to secure employment with comparable remuneration exacerbated by the nature of his current conviction. [ 58 ] In this particular case, the Court is faced with a difficult task.

Having regard to all of the mitigating and aggravating factors, and the sentencing principles, the Court is of the view that a conditional sentence is the appropriate disposition. In reaching this conclusion, the Court has taken into account that the offender orchestrated the thefts over a relatively brief period of four weeks and was motivated solely by his addiction. By contrast, other cases where incarceration was imposed noted that the offences were for the most part, long term and motivated by greed and personal gain.

Sentence: [ 59 ] I sentence you to a jail term of two years less one day to be served in the community, subject to the mandatory conditions specified in s. 742.3(1) as follows: 1. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour; 2. Appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court; 3. Report to a supervisor (

a) within two working days, or such longer period as the Court directs, after making the conditional sentence order, and (

b) thereafter, when required by the supervisor and in the manner directed by the supervisor 4. Remain within the jurisdiction of the Court unless written permission to go outside that jurisdiction is obtained from the supervisor; and 5. Notify the supervisor in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the supervisor of any change of employment or occupation.

You shall also: 6. Reside in a residence approved by the supervisor; 7. Refrain from the consumption of alcohol or illegal non-prescription drugs, and submit to breath, blood or urine testing on demand of a peace officer or supervisor; 8. Refrain from entering any premises where the primary function is the sale of alcohol; 9. Refrain from all forms of gambling, including electronic and internet gambling and from entering any premises where the primary function is gambling; 10.

For the first twelve months of this order, you shall be totally confined to your residence, except for the purpose of attending employment; 11. For the following twelve months, you shall abide by a daily curfew of 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. unless you have the permission of the Court or the prior written permission of the supervisor; 12. Present yourself in person to any peace officer or supervisor checking any provision of this order; 13. Perform 100 hours of community service work as arranged and directed by and to the satisfaction of the supervisor or designate by January 31, 2014; 14.

Attend and meaningfully participate in all treatment related to gambling as recommended by your supervisor; 15. Attend and meaningfully participate in personal and family counselling as recommended by your supervisor; and 16.

Pay to the City of Saskatoon the sum of $4,750.00 on or before March 1, 2013, such sum representing the balance owing for their $10,000.00 deductible loss after applying credit of the $5,250.00 paid into Court. [ 60 ] Pursuant to s. 742.6 of the Criminal Code , should it be established that any of the conditions imposed herein has been breached by you, the Court may suspend or terminate the conditional sentence order and direct that you serve a portion or all of the unexpired sentence in custody. Restitution Order [ 61 ]

Section 738 of the Criminal Code provides for the sentencing court to order the offender to make restitution to another in the amount of the loss, where the amount is readily ascertainable. A restitution order forms part of the sentence, addressing the principles of

reparation and rehabilitation. [ 62 ] The City’s insurer, Travelers Canada, covered the loss, except for the deductible portion of $10,000.00. [ 63 ] Pursuant to s. 738 of the Criminal Code , Mr.

Hache, you are ordered to make restitution to the City of Saskatoon’s insurer, Travelers Canada, in the amount of $133,452.30. [ 64 ] I direct that the amount of $5,250.00, which has been paid into Court shall be paid to the City of Saskatoon forthwith, leaving a balance of $4,750.00 to be paid according to the terms of your conditional sentence. [ 65 ] I decline to impose the victim surcharge in this case as it would pose an undue hardship on you and your dependants. You are ordered to remain to sign the conditional sentence order. ________________________ D.C. Scott, J