R. v. Castro 2010 ONCA 718 holds:
28 Insofar as the nature of the offence is concerned, in cases involving breach of trust, the paramount consideration is the claims of the victims: Fitzgibbon at pp. 1014-15. Ability to pay is not the predominant factor. Indeed, where the circumstances of the offence are particularly egregious, such as where a breach of trust is involved, a restitution order may be made even where there does not appear to be any likelihood of repayment: R. v. Yates (2002), 169 C.C.C. (3d) 506 (B.C. C.A.), at paras. 12 and 17.