R. v. Rauch Date:, 2017 BCPC 219

Citation: R. v. Rauch Date: 20170613 2017 BCPC 219 File No: 9743-1 Registry: Golden IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. KRISTI RAUCH ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE BURDETT (via teleconference) Counsel for the Crown: (by teleconference) J.M. O'Quinn J.W. Burke Counsel for the Defendant: S.L. Paddock Place of Hearing: Golden , B.C.

Date of Hearing: June 13, 2017 Date of Judgment: June 13, 2017 [ 1 ] THE COURT: Kristi Rauch has entered guilty pleas to three counts on Information 9743. Count 1 alleges Ms. Rauch defrauded the businesses, Mount 7 Taxi Limited, NTK Rocks Incorporated, Olympic Stage Lines Ltd., and Sonya Smith doing business as Super Suds Laundry of money between January 1, 2014, to August 21, 2015, in Golden, B.C., contrary to s. 380(1) of the Criminal Code . Count 5 alleges Ms. Rauch, during the same time period, committed forgery by making false documents, invoices, receipts, contrary to s. 367 of the Criminal Code .

Count 6 alleges Ms. Rauch, during the same time period, used forged documents as if they were genuine, contrary to s. 368(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code . Facts [ 2 ] An agreed statement of facts was marked as Exhibit 1 in the proceedings. Exhibit 1 was not drafted with a great deal of precision. It is somewhat confusing. Unfortunately, the Crown who had conduct of this file and drafted the admissions was not present during the sentencing hearing. I do not fault Mr. O'Quinn, the prosecutor who represented the Crown. He was handed a complicated file on very short notice, one of which he had no dealings until the day before.

The imprecise language in Exhibit 1 has led to a disagreement with defence as to the exact calculations of the amounts of money taken. I will return to this issue later. [ 3 ] The businesses in question are all owned by one family. The businesses were started by Sonya Smith's mother, who took a small run-down company and built it into an enterprise employing approximately 25 people. As her mother's health failed, Ms. Smith took over the oversight of the operation of the companies. Ms. Smith's family obligations and her own health concerns necessitated the hiring of a manager. The accused, Ms.

Rauch, had worked as a dispatcher for the company and applied for the manager's job. She was hired and held this position for approximately 10 years. [ 4 ] The businesses were Mount 7 Taxi, Super Suds Laundry, and NTK Rocks Inc., a rock quarry company. She also was in charge of a rental property and Olympic Stage Lines. Ms. Rauch's duties included depositing cheques and money from the businesses into bank accounts, depositing rent, e-Transfers from tenants and preparing billings. [ 5 ] I will outline the frauds as they relate to each business. Mount 7 Taxi Ltd. [ 6 ] It appears Ms.

Rauch routinely took revenues from the safe at the taxi company for her own use. She filled out false deposit slips for the bank to make it look like she had deposited the money; but in fact, she took the money for herself. It is unclear how long this went on for. To ensure the false deposit slips were not detected, she forged a bank manager's initials on the slips and bought a date stamp so the deposit slips looked as if they were genuine. In July 2015, she hired a lock and key company to drill out the safe lock at Mount 7 Taxi and then told the bookkeeper that the safe was broken.

One employee of the taxi company described Ms. Rauch as routinely emptying the taxi company safe. At some point, and again this is unclear in the admissions of fact, Ms. Smith confronted her on the practice of emptying the safe. Ms. Rauch told Ms. Smith that there was an incident where she was emotionally distraught and left a cash deposit in her car and it went missing. There are no details in Exhibit 1 regarding Ms. Smith's response to this admission of Ms. Rauch and what happened afterwards. In any event, the admissions of fact indicate $37,338 was taken from the safe prior to June 2015. [ 7 ] Ms.

Smith, growing suspicious, asked Ms. Rauch to take $16,055 from the Taxi safe and deposit it into the bank. This was a test. Ms. Smith kept an eye on the Taxi's online bank account and saw that the deposit was made on July 3, 2015. However, on the same day, the entire amount was withdrawn from the account. Ms. Rauch and Ms. Smith exchanged text messages regarding this incident. Ms. Rauch told Ms. Smith she was away and would clear up the confusion when she was back at work. On August 25, 2015, she sent a text message to Ms. Smith apologizing and said she would pay the money back.

However, the money was never paid back. [ 8 ] In total, Exhibit 1 suggests that $53,393 was taken from Mount 7 Taxi. It appears Ms. Rauch used the Taxi company bank account as a vehicle to transfer money from the other businesses from which she had also taken money. NTK Rocks Inc. [ 9 ] As I noted earlier, the company owned property which was rented out to tenants. The tenants paid by e-Transfer and part of Ms. Rauch's duties was to deposit the e-Transfers into the Mount 7 Taxi account. She transferred some money into the account, but also put some money into her personal account.

She did this routinely pretty much every month, sometimes more than once per month, between February 3, 2014, and August 2, 2015. Ms. Rauch diverted $21,225 of the rent monies into her personal account. Olympic Stage Lines Ltd. [ 10 ] Ms. Rauch was responsible for doing all the billings for Olympic. B.C. Transit was billed monthly and paid Olympic by direct deposit into their bank account. In July 2015, Ms. Rauch contacted B.C. Transit and claimed her computer was not working and asked that B.C. Transit provide a cheque rather than a direct deposit.

A cheque for $8,552.52 was issued and deposited along with $767.52 into the Olympic account. However, Ms. Rauch then called the bank, pretended to be Ms. Smith, and asked that the money be transferred to the Taxi account. Once that was done, she created a false deposit slip for the same amount and stole that amount of cash from the safe, a total of $9,320.04. Parenthetically, I note that the admissions of fact have this amount incorrectly at $9,320.02 rather than four cents. [ 11 ] There was also a Health Connection Transit contract operated through Olympic Stage Lines. Ms.

Rauch was to collect money from that service and deposit it into the bank. She took $14,754.50 over three years from this account for her own use. The admissions of fact set out that Olympic Stage Lines suffered a total loss of $24,074.54.

Super Suds Laundromat [ 12 ] The laundromat had a contract with Heather Mountain Lodge to do laundry from the hotel. Normally, all payments went into the Super Suds account. On August 1, 2015, the accused created a false invoice for Heather Mountain Lodge in the amount of $3,132.41. On the invoice, it was requested that a cheque be made payable to Mount 7 Taxi. This was done so that Ms. Rauch could access the funds. The incident was caught before the invoice was paid. No monies were obtained by Ms. Rauch. [ 13 ] I turn next to the issue of her use of the funds for personal expenses. [ 14 ] Ms. Rauch asked Ms.

Smith to loan her enough to buy a car. Ms. Smith did so and later co-signed the loan for the car. Ms. Rauch, through 2014 and 2015 billed a number of personal vehicle expenses such as tires, maintenance, and repairs to the company. She also bought personal items through the Taxi account, including an iPhone. The agreed statement of facts for the total amount diverted for these expenses was listed at $4,204.63. [ 15 ] The admissions of fact provided a total of $102,897.15, and again I note for the record that the actual total is $102,897.17. It appears that Ms. Rauch spent $40,000 on clothing.

She spent other money on trips to Mexico. [ 16 ] Ms. Rauch made three overtures to Ms. Smith to arrange for a repayment plan for the money. In August 2015, she sent Ms. Smith a text offering to pay the money back. However, she was unaware of the total amount of money she had taken at that point. Ms. Rauch offered to move in with her aunt and get a second job. She also apologized. On August 27, Ms. Rauch's aunt sent Ms. Smith a text which included an offer by Ms. Rauch to pay $50,000 back plus another $8,000 towards an outstanding loan. In October 2015, Ms. Rauch wrote Ms.

Smith a letter admitting she owned $100,000 and offered to pay $1,000 a month. According to defence counsel, Ms. Smith has refused to engage in any discussions regarding repayment. [ 17 ] Despite the agreed statement of facts, the defence took issue with the total amount of the fraud, stating that the $102,897.17 includes amounts Ms. Smith has incurred to restore her family's companies, such as accounting fees to determine the extent of the loss, fees for reprogramming the computer access codes and Ms. Smith’s own time to unravel and repair the damage that was done.

There is no evidence to support this submission. The amounts in the admissions clearly add up to the total of $102,897.17 and do not appear to include any estimate of the costs to the victim to restore the companies to safe business practices. Ms. Rauch, on her own initiative, made an offer of restitution of $100,000. Even if the total amount includes some expenses which were incurred by Ms. Smith in her effort to restore the companies, they are all losses directly attributable to Ms. Rauch’s fraudulent and deceitful acts. I am satisfied that the Crown has proven a total loss of $102,897.17.

Victim Impact [ 18 ] Ms. Smith addressed the court and read her victim impact statement. It is clear these offences have had a devastating impact on her personally and on the family companies. The stress of these events has compromised her health. Her relationship with other professionals in the community has suffered. She and her family have had to endure shame and embarrassment. Ms. Smith's trust in others has been shattered. As a result of Ms. Rauch's action, the businesses were depleted almost to the point of no recovery. Ms.

Smith had to borrow from her line of credit to keep the businesses solvent and to ensure the employees were paid. Ms. Smith was forced to cancel an employee benefit program and had to warn her employees that the business was at risk of closing and they would lose their jobs. It is unclear if employees were laid off or terminated, but Ms. Smith feels that she will never recover financially. [ 19 ] I turn next to Ms. Rauch's circumstances. [ 20 ] It is unfortunate that a presentence report was not prepared as it would have given the court details of Ms.

Rauch's childhood, education, previous work history, and present circumstances. Although the court was provided with expert reports from a psychiatrist, Dr. van der Lugt, who is Ms. Rauch's treating psychiatrist, an independent forensic psychiatric evaluation of Ms. Rauch would have been particularly useful. [ 21 ] Counsel advised that Ms. Rauch is 34 years old. She has no criminal record. She has two daughters, ages 15 and 19, who live with their father, Marc Pufal. Ms. Rauch sees her children on the weekends. She pays $400 a month in child support and helps out with extra costs. Mr. Pufal writes that Ms.

Rauch is willing to help with extras for the children such as clothing and braces. It is somewhat ironic as Ms. Smith, in her victim impact statement, disclosed that she gave money to Ms. Rauch for her children's braces at a time when Ms. Smith could not afford to pay braces for her own children. Mr. Pufal writes that it would be devastating and harmful to the children if Ms. Rauch was sent to jail. [ 22 ] Ms. Rauch lives with her partner, who apparently pays all of the expenses except the utilities and phone, which are shared. I have been given no circumstances of Ms. Rauch's partner. Ms.

Rauch apparently has no assets. It is unknown if Ms. Rauch has any sort of equitable interest in real property, or other assets which were accumulated during her marriage or during her common law relationship. [ 23 ] Ms. Rauch has been a volunteer in the community for a number of years at such events as hockey games. She has been employed as a cleaner for two years, working 40 hours a week. Her present employee, Lisa Carlson, provided a letter and described Ms. Rauch as a valuable employee who has been promoted to a job as a supervisor. It appears Ms. Carlson has no difficulties giving Ms.

Rauch unsupervised access and keys to her clients’ homes, some 70 residences. [ 24 ] Four other letters describe Ms. Rauch's character. They are from Ms. Rauch's aunts, mother, and cousin. Ms. Rauch's family members all see her as a passionate, generous, hard-working individual with a high moral code. [ 25 ] Ms. Rauch has seen some mental health professionals. Heather Barrett from the Golden Family Centre provided a letter dated April 4, 2016, indicating Ms. Rauch has been accessing services with the Family Centre since September 2015. She attended weekly counselling sessions in the Stopping the Violence Program.

I was provided no information as to why Ms. Rauch was attending this program. It appears she was fully engaged in those counselling sessions which address safety in relationships, trust, self-worth, and self- esteem.

[ 26 ] In November 2015, she began attending mental health counselling to receive assistance in managing her bipolar disorder. They monitored her compliance with medication and provided 14 sessions of cognitive behavioural therapy. It appears Ms. Rauch's involvement with mental health counselling is now on an as-needed basis, with Ms. Rauch booking future appointments if she thinks she needs them. [ 27 ] Ms. Rauch was diagnosed with bipolar disorder by Dr. van der Lugt in December 2015. He prescribed medication and she has been compliant with her course of medication. It appears she has seen Dr.

Lugt three times, first for diagnosis and two follow-up appointments in November 2016 and March of 2017. He is of the opinion that as long as Ms. Rauch continues to take her medication, her risk of having another manic episode is low. Dr. Lugt provided some general information regarding bipolar disorder in his letters.

He stated, "Hallmark symptoms are an increased risk for involvement with activities that have painful consequences such as spending sprees, sexual indiscretions, and foolish business investments." [ 28 ] Speaking of manic episodes, he provided the following opinion: The episodes are severe enough to cause a severe impairment in social and occupational activities. This is mostly due to poor insight into the illness... [ 29 ] He went on to state: Poor judgment is displayed regarding the eventual outcome of most activities and plans made during the illness period.

Criminal activities can result due to the poor judgment, grandiosity and increase involvement in activities of painful or detrimental outcomes. [ 30 ] The doctor's report indicates that Ms. Rauch disclosed she experienced manic episodes intermittently over the years these offences occurred. [ 31 ] Finally, Ms. Rauch addressed the court and expressed her remorse. I am satisfied she is truly sorry for her actions. The Crown's Position on Sentence [ 32 ] The Crown described these offences as organized intentional acts orchestrated by someone in a position of trust, which had devastating consequences.

The Crown submits that a fit sentence for the offence of fraud over this period of time, committed by someone in a position of trust leading to a loss of over $100,000 is one-year incarceration followed by two years' probation, and a restitution order. I should note for the record a conditional sentence is no longer available in these circumstances.

The Crown says a suspended sentence would be inconsistent with the fundamental principles of denunciation and deterrence and further submits there are no extreme personal mitigating circumstances, while acknowledging the early guilty plea and the lack of a criminal record. Position of the Defence on Sentencing [ 33 ] Defence argues there are extreme personal mitigating circumstances and urges the court to impose a suspended sentence. Defence cites Ms. Rauch's untreated mental illness as being the cause of her involvement in these criminal acts.

Further, defence argues that any restitution order should be made cautiously and cites R. v. Yates . Defence argues that if I make a restitution order, any sentence imposed must be lessened accordingly. Analysis [ 34 ] I must consider the purposes and principles of sentencing as set out in s. 718 through to 718.2 of the Criminal Code , Ms. Rauch's personal circumstances, and the circumstances of the offences. Any sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and Ms. Rauch's degree of responsibility. This process is individual to each case and each offender.

The purposes and principles of sentencing take into account the needs of the community and the offender. In the end, the sentence must balance these needs, giving weight to some more than others, depending on all of the circumstances of the individual case. The overriding sentencing consideration is to contribute to respect for the law and the protection of the community and society. [ 35 ]

Section 718.2(

d) provides that I must impose the least restrictive sanction appropriate in the circumstances. [ 36 ] The maximum penalty for fraud pursuant to s. 380 of the Criminal Code is 14 years in jail.

Section 380.1 codifies aggravated circumstances which must be considered in any fraud sentencing. [ 37 ] Counsel have cited a number of sentencing authorities to support their positions on sentence. The Crown has cited R. v. Reid , 2000 YKCA 4 ; R. v. Zolnasr , [2011] B.C.J. No. 2452 ; R. v. Dreger , 2014 BCCA 54 ; R. v. Reynolds , [2016] B.C.J. No. 570 ; and R. v. Klyne , [2017] B.C.J. No. 209 . [ 38 ] The defence cited R. v. Dickson , 2007 BCCA 561 ; R. v. Voong , 2015 BCCA 285 ; R. v. Burkart , 2006 BCCA 466 [sic, 446]; R. v. Offman , 2017 BCPC 70 ; R. v. Kalonji , 2010 ONCA 111 ; R. v.

Whitney , 2015 BCPC 27 ; R. v. Waldron , 2016 B.C. Provincial Court; and R. v. Adam , an unreported decision from the Provincial Court of British Columbia, March 13, 2017, Victoria Registry. [ 39 ] The sentences in these cases range from four years' incarceration to a conditional sentence. Each case is unique in terms of the particular facts and circumstances of each offender. However, general sentencing principles for cases similar to this emerge from a reading of the authorities: 1.

In cases involving theft or fraud of large sums of money by employees who are in a position of trust with serious consequences to the victims, the sentencing goal of deterrence is paramount. In R. v. Reid , Mr. Justice Hall discussed the need for a deterrent sentence, cited with approval R. v. Pierce where Justice Finlayson stated: What the authorities make clear is that the purpose of incarcerating these offenders is not to protect the community from any danger

posed by the particular offender, but to protect the community from the danger posed by those who may be inclined to engage in similar conduct. 2. As stated in R. v. Yates , 2002 BCCA 583 , restitution can be a mitigating factor. Where punishment is exacted in the form of a restitution order, there should be a corresponding reduction in other forms of punishment which might be imposed. This principle was confirmed in R. v. Bodnarchuk , 2008 BCCA 39 . 3.

Where offences involve a theft or a breach of trust, restitution should be ordered to compensate the victim even if the offender has little or no ability to pay because the offender should be deprived of the fruits of their crime; R. v. Dreger , British Columbia Court of Appeal. 4. Punishment may be inflicted and general deterrence and denunciation achieved in ways other than conventional imprisonment; R. v. Voong , 2015 BCCA 285 , at paragraph 43 . 5.

If extreme mitigating circumstances are established, they may give rise to a lengthy onerous noncustodial sentence such as a conditional sentence, when they were available, as in R. v. Dickson and R. v. Offman , or a suspended sentence as seen in R. v. Whitney and R. v. Waldron .

Extreme mitigating circumstances may include what flows from the conviction such as prohibitions from professional associations, extreme public humiliation and embarrassment, extreme hardship to the defendant if jail is imposed, lack of financial benefit from the fraud, an early guilty plea, personal sacrifices from the defendant to make restitution, and health problems suffered from the accused and their families. 6. Untreated undiagnosed mental disorders such as bipolar disorder which are causally linked to the offence may justify a noncustodial sentence; R. v.

Dickson . [ 40 ] I turn now to the factors specific to this case. [ 41 ] The aggravating factors are: 1. First, the amount of money taken, $102,897.17. 2. The length of time during which the crime was committed - at a minimum an 18-month period. 3. The breach of trust. Ms. Rauch stole from an employer who had trusted her and treated her very generously throughout the years. 4. The planning and deliberation. Ms. Rauch moved company money to an account which was more accessible for her in order to move it to her own accounts. She hired a person to drill out the lock of the safe. She personated Ms. Smith.

She forged the initials of a bank manager. She purchased a date stamp to further perpetuate the fraud. She concocted false receipts. She called unwitting third parties, had them send cheques to her and then took the money for herself. Over a six-month period, she regularly charged personal expenses to the company. While I accept that during some of this time Ms. Rauch was in a manic episode where her judgment was clouded, I have no doubt there were many other times during which she had the opportunity to reflect upon her behaviour and stop her criminal activity. 5. The significant impact on the victim. Ms.

Smith and her family will never recover financially from the offences. Ms. Smith has been emotionally damaged by the personal betrayal of Ms. Rauch. Her health has suffered. The employees of the companies had their employee benefits plan cancelled. They were told they were at risk of being laid off which must have been an anxious time for all involved. 6. Ms. Rauch used the money to pay for expensive vacations, clothes, and other extravagances. 7. She has not paid any restitution. I accept that she made a number of overtures to Ms. Smith to discuss repayment and Ms. Smith refused to engage in those discussions.

However, Ms. Rauch did not arrive for her sentencing hearing with any sort of payment, even though it has been two years since her crimes were detected. She had an option to save some money before her sentencing to show that her offer of restitution was genuine. In August 2015, she offered to pay $1,000 a month. If she put that money aside, she could be making a $20,000 payment towards restitution today. Counsel has indicated that Ms. Rauch can now only afford to pay $500 a month. At that rate, it will take 17 years to pay the money back. [ 42 ] The mitigating factors in this case are: 1.

The lack of a criminal record; 2. A guilty plea. Ms. Rauch made her first appearance in November 2016 and entered a guilty plea in May 2017. The Crown was not put to the expense of a lengthy trial. 3. Her genuine expression of remorse. 4. Her mental health. I accept that Ms. Rauch's mental illness significantly impaired her judgment. I accept she has now been properly diagnosed and, if she continues with her course of medication, the risk of future harm to the community is small. 5. She pays child support every month and her ex-spouse and her children will be impacted if she is sent to jail. 6.

She has a supportive family who is prepared to stand by her. 7. She enjoys the support of an employer who has great faith in her abilities and has promoted her even knowing of Ms. Rauch's outstanding charges. [ 43 ] Ms. Rauch's circumstances do not include some of the particulars that were present in many of the cases cited by defence

counsel. There was no significant media attention, a high degree of public embarrassment, or the loss of support of important people in her life such as in the Offman case, which were all mitigating circumstances. There, Judge Quantz imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day with house arrest for 18 of those months. [ 44 ] In the cases where suspended sentences were imposed, similar distinguishing circumstances were present. In the Whitney case, the accused stole $650 and made full restitution and had resigned from his position as a police officer, losing his pension and future salary.

He also suffered significant social stigma as a result of his crime. Similarly, in Waldron , the accused was going to be able to make full restitution within three years. In that case, there was a joint submission from the Crown and defence for a suspended sentence, unlike this case. In the Adam case, again, the accused was the subject of intense media attention, her children were affected by her crime, and her marriage fell apart. She lost a job she secured after the offence when the notoriety of her actions came to the attention of her new employer.

She had paid full restitution at the time of sentencing. [ 45 ] After considering all of the applicable sentencing principles, the authorities cited by counsel, and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, I am of the view that a sentence of one-year incarceration on Count 1 followed by a two-year probation term is required to satisfy, in particular, the sentencing principles of deterrence and denunciation. Ms.

Rauch's personal circumstances are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant a suspended sentence. [ 46 ] On Count 5, the sentence is three months to be served concurrently with Count 1. [ 47 ] On Count 6, the sentence is three months to be served concurrently with Counts 1 and 5. [ 48 ] This is to be followed by the two-year probation order with the following terms. [ 49 ] Ms.

Rauch, you must keep the peace and be of good behavior. [ 50 ] You must appear before the court when required to do so by the court. [ 51 ] You must notify the court or probation officer in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the court or the probation officer of any change of employment or occupation. [ 52 ] You are to have no contact or communication either directly or indirectly with Sonya Smith. [ 53 ] You must report to a probation officer -- Mr. Crown, where is the probation office where she must report upon her release? [ 54 ] MR.

BURKE: Actually, we do have a probation office -- an office here and it is not open all the time, but a probation officer attends regularly. [ 55 ] THE COURT: All right. [ 56 ] MR. BURKE: For other contacts, she can contact the main office in Cranbrook. [ 57 ] THE COURT: Okay. [ 58 ] So you must report in person to a probation officer at Golden, British Columbia, within seven business days after your release from custody unless you have obtained prior to your release written permission from the probation officer to report elsewhere or within a different time frame.

After that, you must report as directed by the probation officer. [ 59 ] You must attend, participate in, and successfully complete any intake assessment, counselling, or program as directed by the probation officer.

Without limiting the general nature of this condition, the intakes, assessments, counselling, or program may relate to your mental health. [ 60 ] You must not possess any identification documents including credit cards, debit cards, cheques, negotiable instruments, drivers' licenses, birth certificates, Social Insurance Cards, mail, invoices, or bills other than what is in your own name. [ 61 ] Before seeking, obtaining, or continuing any employment or becoming a volunteer in any capacity that involves having authority over the real property, money, or valuable security of another person or corporation, you must inform the employer or the organization of this conviction. [ 62 ] You must not work in any capacity that requires you to enter another person's private residence unless you have the written permission of your probation officer.

You must carry the permission while engaged in such work. [ 63 ] I now turn to the issue of restitution. [ 64 ] At this point, Ms. Rauch's plan to pay the debt off over 17 years is of no meaningful benefit to the victims. She will be incarcerated for some months and will not be able to make any payments.

However, I am mindful of Madam Justice Bennett's comments in Dreger that with offences involving theft or breach of trust, restitution should be ordered to compensate the victim, even if the offender has little or no ability to pay, because an offender should be deprived of the fruits of her crime. [ 65 ] Accordingly, there will be a stand alone restitution order to Sonya Smith for the benefit of Mount 7 Taxi Ltd., NTK Rocks Inc., Olympic Stage Lines Ltd., and Sonya Smith in the amount of $102,897.17. [ 66 ] Okay, is anything further from counsel? Those are my reasons for sentence. [ 67 ] MR.

BURKE: Nothing from the Crown perspective, except if it has not been done already, Your Honour, I would ask the remaining counts be stayed at this time.

[ 68 ] THE COURT: We still have to deal with the victim fine surcharge. [ 69 ] MR. BURKE: Oh, thank you, sorry. I forgot about that. [ 70 ] THE COURT: Ms. Rauch is going to be in custody. So given all of the circumstances, I order that the victim fine surcharges are payable forthwith and she is to serve 1 day default with respect to the victim fine surcharges on each of the counts for which I have sentenced her, concurrent with the sentences I have imposed on each count. [ 71 ] MR. BURKE: I believe that covers everything from my perspective, Your Honour. [ 72 ] MS. PADDOCK: I have nothing, Your Honour. [ 73 ] THE COURT: Thank you. (REASONS CONCLUDED)