I may have been having trouble understanding where my colleague saw that because I was reading the French version and not the English version, but now I think I understand. In English, it is a lot more like an obligation than it is in French. I did not see what the problem was in French because it says, “Lorsqu'il rend une ordonnance. . . .” In other words, the court will not necessarily make an order. The French goes on to say, “le tribunal enjoint au délinquant de payer la totalité de la somme indiquée dans l’ordonnance au plus tard à la date qu’il précise ou, s’il l’estime indiqué. . .”—so again, it is left entirely to the court's discretion—“de la payer en versements échelonnés, selon le calendrier qu’il précise”.
I really thought that the provision was giving the court full discretion and describing how the court would make an order if it deemed doing so appropriate. It is true, though, that it reads a bit differently in the English version, which says:
It says, “In making an order under section...”, here's what may....
I think it is perfectly fine in French. But the English wording may need to be revisited.