R. v. Stevic, 2022 BCCA 45, January 31, 2022, at paragraphs 14, 16 and 19 to 21:

A judge cannot impose a fine unless satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, the accused is able to pay.

Where there is past receipt of illegally obtained funds, a judge may infer the accused has the ability to pay a fine in the absence of a reasonable explanation that they no longer possess their ill‑gotten gains: Topp at para. 7. A judge may also make this inference if they have sufficient financial information, obtain the assurance of counsel, or consider the conduct of the accused…

Restitution orders are not subject to s. 734(2): Topp at para. 38. Nonetheless, while the accused’s ability to pay restitution is not a precondition to making a restitution order, it is an important factor a judge must weigh and consider, and not merely note: R. v. Robertson, 2020 ONCA 367 at para. 8; R. v. Sawchuk, 2021 BCCA 74 at para. 16; R. v. Abdulahi‑Sabet, 2020 BCCA 213 at para. 13.

However, where the offence involves a breach of trust, or is theft‑related and stolen money is unaccounted for, the accused’s ability to pay is given little weight. The inverse is also true. In these circumstances, it is important to account for what happened to the money: Abdulahi‑Sabet at paras. 14–15.

A restitution order should be made with restraint and caution, should bear in mind the principle of totality, and should not be a mechanical afterthought: Abdulahi‑Sabet at para. 12.