Criminal Defence · Fraud (Criminal Code s. 380)

Fraud Lawyer in Toronto

Reviewed by Fadi Matthew Kazandji, Founding Partner, Kazandji Law · Toronto criminal defence · Last reviewed: July 2026

A fraud charge in Toronto often starts quietly. A call from a bank investigator. A supervisor who asks you to step into a boardroom. A police officer at your door in Vaughan, Markham, or Brampton. What feels at first like a misunderstanding that will sort itself out becomes a criminal file that ties the words "fraud" and "criminal record" to your name — and can follow you into your job, your professional licence, and your ability to stay in Canada.

At Kazandji Law, our criminal defence team represents people charged with fraud and related property and financial offences across Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area. This page explains what you are actually facing under Canadian fraud law in 2026, exactly what the prosecution has to prove, the realistic range of outcomes, and the defences that most often lead to a charge being withdrawn, reduced, or resolved without a conviction. If you would rather talk it through now, call 647-588-3234 for a free, confidential consultation.

An important starting point: a fraud charge is only an allegation, and fraud is one of the most defensible offences in the Criminal Code precisely because it depends on proving dishonesty and intent. Many fraud files are, on close inspection, accounting errors, misunderstandings about authority, or business disputes that belong in civil court — not proof of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Knowing the difference, and being able to demonstrate it, is at the heart of a strong defence.

What is fraud under Canadian law?

Fraud is defined in section 380(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The provision is deliberately broad. It states that "every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service" commits an offence.^[1]

That single sentence carries a great deal of weight. Unlike theft, which is about taking something, fraud is about dishonesty causing loss. It does not require a lie in the narrow sense; the phrase "other fraudulent means" is intentionally open-ended and can capture conduct that would strike an ordinary person as dishonest even where no explicit false statement was made. That breadth is a double-edged sword: it gives the Crown flexibility, but it also means the boundaries of the offence are contestable, and a skilled defence often lives in exactly those grey areas.

Fraud charges arise in an enormous variety of everyday situations — misuse of a company credit card, disputed expense claims, alleged misstatements on a loan or mortgage application, problems with client funds in a professional role, insurance claims the insurer later disputes, and complex investment or online schemes. What unites them is not the setting but the two legal ingredients the Crown must always establish, discussed next.

What the Crown must prove: a dishonest act and deprivation

The elements of fraud were settled by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Théroux (1993), decided alongside its companion case R. v. Zlatic. Every Canadian fraud prosecution is measured against this framework, and understanding it is the key to understanding your defence.^[2]

The prohibited act (actus reus)

The Crown must prove two components of the wrongful conduct itself:

• A dishonest act — carried out by deceit, by a falsehood, or by "other fraudulent means." Where the case rests on that last, catch-all category, the court decides whether the conduct was dishonest using an objective standard: would a reasonable person regard the act as dishonest? A subjective belief that one did nothing wrong does not answer this question.^[2]
• Deprivation — caused by the dishonest act. Critically, deprivation does not require that anyone actually lost money. In Théroux the Court confirmed that deprivation is established by "actual loss or the placing of the victim's pecuniary interests at risk." Putting someone's economic interests in jeopardy is enough, even if, in the end, no loss materialized.^[2]

The guilty mind (mens rea)

Fraud is a specific-intent offence, and the mental element has two parts that the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

• Subjective knowledge of the prohibited act — that the accused knew they were carrying out the deceit, falsehood, or other dishonest conduct; and
• Subjective knowledge that the act could cause deprivation — that the accused knew the conduct could have, as a consequence, the deprivation of another (including knowledge that the victim's pecuniary interests were being put at risk).^[2]

The Court in Théroux also made clear that recklessness suffices: an accused is guilty whether they actually intended the deprivation or were reckless as to whether it would occur, and an honest belief that the scheme would ultimately cause no harm does not, by itself, provide a defence. This matters enormously in practice. It means the real battleground in most fraud cases is knowledge and intent — whether the Crown can prove that you knew what you were doing was dishonest and knew it could cause loss, rather than that you made an honest error, relied in good faith on someone else, or misunderstood your authority.

Fraud over $5,000 vs. fraud under $5,000

Fraud is a value-driven offence. The single most important number in most fraud files is the alleged value of the subject-matter, because it determines both the classification of the charge and the maximum penalty. Section 380(1) draws a bright line at $5,000.^[1]

A few points that matter in practice:

• These are maximums, not typical sentences. They mark the ceiling for the most serious cases. A great many fraud files — particularly first offences, modest amounts, and cases where the money has been repaid — resolve well below these figures, and some resolve without a conviction at all.
• Fraud over $5,000 is not a hybrid offence. It proceeds only by indictment. That classification carries downstream consequences (including for immigration, discussed below), which is one reason the alleged value is so heavily contested.
• A "testamentary instrument" — broadly, a will or similar document — pushes a fraud into the indictable, 14-year category regardless of dollar value.^[1]
• The value can be challenged. How the alleged loss is calculated, whether amounts should be aggregated across separate transactions, and whether the figure reflects genuine loss are all live issues. Moving a case from "over" to "under" $5,000 can change everything.

Because this threshold is so consequential, the firm maintains dedicated pages for each side of the line — fraud over $5,000 and fraud under $5,000.

The mandatory minimum for large-scale fraud

There is one situation in which the Criminal Code removes the court's usual discretion. Under section 380(1.1), when a person is prosecuted on indictment and convicted of one or more fraud offences under s. 380(1), the court "shall impose a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years" if the total value of the subject-matter of the offences exceeds one million dollars.^[1] This is a genuine mandatory minimum: it applies only where the case proceeds by indictment and only where the aggregate value crosses the $1,000,000 mark. In large-loss files, whether that threshold is reached — and how the total is calculated — becomes a central issue.

How fraud is sentenced: aggravating factors and restitution

Outside the narrow mandatory-minimum situation above, fraud sentencing is highly individualized. The court weighs the general sentencing principles in the Criminal Code alongside a specific list of aggravating circumstances that Parliament enacted for fraud.

Statutory aggravating circumstances (s. 380.1)

Section 380.1 directs that, when sentencing for fraud, a court "shall consider the following as aggravating circumstances":^[3]

• the magnitude, complexity, duration, or degree of planning of the fraud was significant;
• the offence adversely affected, or had the potential to affect, the stability of the Canadian economy, the financial system, a financial market, or investor confidence;
• the offence involved a large number of victims;
• the offence had a significant impact on the victims given their personal circumstances, including age, health, and financial situation;
• in committing the offence, the offender took advantage of the high regard in which they were held in the community;
• the offender did not comply with a licensing requirement or professional standard normally applicable to the activity; and
• the offender concealed or destroyed records related to the fraud or the disbursement of its proceeds.

The same provision adds an important limit that cuts the other way for many accused professionals: the offender's employment, employment skills, reputation, or status in the community may not be treated as mitigating where those very things were relevant to, or were used in, committing the offence. And the court must state on the record the aggravating and mitigating circumstances it considered.^[3] Understanding which of these factors the Crown will press — and marshalling the mitigating evidence that responds to them — is a core part of preparing any fraud case for resolution or sentencing.

Restitution

Fraud sentencing very often involves restitution — a court order that the offender repay the victim. The power to order restitution comes from section 738 of the Criminal Code, which allows a court to order an offender to make restitution for, among other things, the loss or destruction of property.^[4] A separate provision, section 737.1, requires the court in every case to consider making a restitution order and, where a victim seeks restitution but none is ordered, to state its reasons on the record.^[5]

Two practical points follow. First, the court must consider restitution — it is not automatic, and it is not a substitute for the criminal process. Second, an offender's limited ability to pay does not, by itself, prevent a restitution order; section 739.1 says financial means "does not prevent the court from making" such an order.^[6] That said, voluntary repayment before sentencing is frequently powerful mitigation, and organizing it early is often part of a well-run defence. (A related order under s. 380.2 can also prohibit a convicted fraudster from holding employment or volunteer positions that involve authority over another person's money or property.^[7])

Related fraud and financial offences

"Fraud" is often the headline, but people are frequently charged under neighbouring Criminal Code provisions, sometimes in addition to s. 380. Each has its own elements and penalties, and the exact section you face shapes the defence.

False pretences (s. 361 and s. 362)

A false pretence is defined in section 361 as "a representation of a matter of fact either present or past, made by words or otherwise, that is known by the person who makes it to be false and that is made with a fraudulent intent to induce the person to whom it is made to act on it."^[8] Section 362 makes it an offence to obtain property or credit by a false pretence or by fraud. Like fraud itself, the penalty tracks value: where the property obtained is a testamentary instrument or worth more than $5,000, the offence is punishable by up to 10 years by indictment (or by summary conviction); where the value is not more than $5,000, the indictable maximum is 2 years.^[9]

Identity theft (s. 402.2) and identity fraud (s. 403)

These two offences are often confused, but they are distinct. Identity theft under section 402.2 targets obtaining or possessing another person's identity information with intent to use it to commit an indictable offence involving fraud, deceit, or falsehood (and trafficking in such information). It is a hybrid offence carrying a maximum of 5 years by indictment.^[10] Identity fraud under section 403 targets fraudulently personating another person — living or dead — for advantage, to obtain property, to cause disadvantage, or to obstruct justice. It is also hybrid, but carries a higher maximum of 10 years by indictment.^[11] If your matter involves misuse of another person's identity, see our identity theft page.

Fraudulent registration of title (s. 386)

Section 386 addresses fraud in the context of real property — knowingly and with intent to deceive making false statements, or suppressing material facts, in a proceeding to register title to land or in a transaction relating to registered (or to-be-registered) real property. It is a hybrid offence with a maximum of 5 years by indictment.^[12] This provision can arise in real-estate and mortgage-related files that are sometimes described loosely as "mortgage fraud."

Other charges that often accompany fraud

Depending on the facts, a fraud investigation can also generate charges such as forgery, credit card fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, or securities offences. Because these charges frequently overlap, it is important to understand the full scope of what is alleged before responding to any of it.

The consequences of a fraud record beyond the sentence

Clients often focus first on the possibility of jail. For many fraud cases — especially first offences and smaller amounts — the more realistic and lasting harms lie elsewhere. A criminal record for fraud, an offence of dishonesty, can affect:

• Employment and professional licensing. Fraud is a crime of dishonesty, which makes it especially damaging in trust-based and regulated fields. A record can affect current employment, future hiring, bonding, security clearances, and standing with the professional regulators that oversee accountants, financial advisors, lawyers, healthcare workers, real-estate agents, and others. Regulators may take their own disciplinary action independent of the criminal court.
• Immigration status. This is critical for non-citizens. Under section 36 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible for serious criminality if convicted of an offence punishable by a maximum term of at least 10 years, or one for which a term of more than six months was actually imposed. Because fraud over $5,000 carries a maximum of 14 years, it qualifies as serious criminality regardless of the sentence imposed — which can mean loss of status with limited or no right of appeal. If you are not a Canadian citizen, tell your lawyer immediately: avoiding a conviction, or keeping the case under the relevant thresholds, may matter far more than the sentence itself.^[13]
• Financial life and reputation. A fraud record can damage relationships with banks, lenders, and business partners, and the reputational harm within a community or industry can outlast any sentence.
• Travel. A record for a crime of dishonesty can complicate entry to the United States and other countries.
• Restitution and civil exposure. Beyond any criminal restitution order, the same conduct can trigger civil litigation seeking to recover the alleged loss, sometimes running in parallel with the criminal case (see below).

These downstream effects are exactly why it is worth fighting a fraud charge that may look "manageable" on paper. The gap between a withdrawal or a resolution without a conviction and a registered fraud conviction can shape a person's professional and personal life for years.

Civil fraud vs. criminal fraud in Ontario

Not every fraud problem is purely criminal. The same set of facts can generate both a criminal prosecution and a civil lawsuit, and the two proceed on very different tracks. On the criminal side, the Crown must prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, and the focus is punishment and public accountability. On the civil side, an individual or company may sue to recover money or property, and the standard of proof is only the balance of probabilities — a lower bar. Civil claims can seek damages, tracing orders, and other tools to locate and recover assets.

Where both processes are running, decisions made in one can have unintended consequences in the other — for example, statements or documents produced in a civil case can matter to the criminal file. If you are facing both, it is important that your criminal defence is coordinated with any civil counsel so that a step taken to resolve one problem does not create another.

The fraud court process in Ontario, step by step

Understanding the sequence of a fraud case helps you see where a defence can be built. Most Criminal Code fraud in Ontario is prosecuted by the provincial Crown (the Ministry of the Attorney General), and files move through the Ontario Court of Justice and, for more serious matters, the Superior Court of Justice.

1. Investigation and charge

Fraud cases are often investigated for weeks or months before any charge is laid — by police, but sometimes triggered by an internal corporate review, a bank, or a government agency. This pre-charge stage is important: what you say to an investigator, an employer, or a bank can become evidence. If you learn you are under investigation, that is the time to get advice, not after a charge is laid.

2. Release or bail

For many fraud charges, people are released by police on an appearance notice or an undertaking, sometimes with conditions. More serious files — large alleged losses, multiple counts, or a prior record — may require a bail hearing, where arriving with a workable release plan and sureties can be decisive.

3. Disclosure

Your lawyer obtains disclosure — the Crown's evidence. The Crown's constitutional duty to disclose all relevant material flows from the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Stinchcombe (1991).^[14] Fraud files are typically document-heavy: bank records, transaction histories, emails and internal messages, contracts and job descriptions, spreadsheets and invoices, and the notes of any internal investigation. A meticulous, forensic review of this material — often with the help of forensic accountants — is where most winning fraud defences begin.

4. Crown pre-trial and resolution discussions

Most fraud cases involve a Crown pre-trial, where your lawyer tests the strength of the case and explores whether it can be withdrawn, reduced, or resolved without a conviction. Where the value can be brought under $5,000, where intent is genuinely in doubt, or where repayment has been arranged, this stage is often where a well-prepared fraud charge is resolved on favourable terms.

5. Judicial pre-trial, Charter applications, and trial

A judicial pre-trial narrows the contested issues and estimates trial length. If the case does not resolve, it proceeds to trial, where the Crown must prove both the dishonest act and deprivation, and the guilty mind, beyond a reasonable doubt. Where police obtained evidence through an unlawful search of a home, a device, or financial records, a Charter application to exclude that evidence may be available. From first appearance to conclusion, a contested fraud case commonly takes many months, and complex financial files can take longer.

How Kazandji Law defends fraud charges

Fraud cases are won on detail, and the right strategy depends entirely on the disclosure in your specific file. The issues our lawyers most often examine include:

• Intent — the honest-mistake defence. Fraud requires proof of a guilty mind. Where the conduct is better explained as an honest error, a misunderstanding of authority, reliance in good faith on someone else, or poor record-keeping, the Crown may be unable to prove that you knew the act was dishonest and could cause loss, as Théroux requires.
• No deprivation. The Crown must prove actual loss or a real risk of loss to economic interests caused by the dishonest act. Where the alleged "victim" suffered no loss and faced no genuine risk, this element can fall away.
• Challenging the value. Because the $5,000 and $1,000,000 thresholds drive classification, penalty, and immigration consequences, we scrutinize how the alleged loss was calculated and whether amounts have been improperly aggregated.
• Attacking the paper trail. Fraud is proven with documents. We test whether the records actually establish what the Crown claims, whether the accounting is reliable, and whether an innocent explanation fits the same evidence — frequently with the assistance of forensic accountants.
• Unlawful search and seizure (Charter s. 8). Did police have lawful authority — a valid warrant, a lawful production order — to obtain the financial records, emails, or devices at the heart of the case? Section 8 of the Charter protects against unreasonable search and seizure, and evidence obtained in breach of it may be excluded.
• Right to counsel and right to silence (Charter s. 10(b)). Were you properly advised of your right to a lawyer, and was any statement taken fairly? Statements obtained improperly can be challenged.
• Exclusion of evidence (Charter s. 24(2)). Where a Charter breach is established, the court applies the three-part test from R. v. Grant (2009) to decide whether the evidence should be excluded.^[15]
• Resolution and mitigation. Where the evidence is strong, the goal shifts to the best available outcome — pressing for a withdrawal or a reduction, arranging restitution, and assembling the mitigating record that responds directly to the s. 380.1 aggravating factors.

These are issues that may be available — not guarantees. No responsible lawyer promises a result before reviewing the disclosure. What we promise is a rigorous, honest assessment and a defence built around the specific facts and evidence in your case.

Common myths about fraud charges

"I paid the money back, so there's no case." Repayment is valuable mitigation, but it does not erase the offence — fraud is complete when the dishonest act and the risk of deprivation occur. Repayment is a reason to expect a better outcome, not proof that no charge can proceed.

"No one actually lost money, so it isn't fraud." Not so. Under Théroux, putting a victim's economic interests at risk is enough — actual loss is not required.

"I didn't lie outright, so I can't be guilty of fraud." Fraud reaches beyond outright lies. The "other fraudulent means" branch of s. 380 can capture conduct a reasonable person would consider dishonest even without an explicit false statement.

"It's just a civil business dispute." Sometimes it is — and showing that is a real defence. But the same facts can support a criminal charge, and the two can run at once. Assuming a matter is "only civil" can be a costly mistake.

"If I just explain everything, they'll drop it." Explaining rarely helps and often supplies the very evidence of knowledge and intent the Crown was missing. You have the right to silence — use it, and speak to a lawyer first.

"A fraud charge always means jail." Not for most cases. Custody is genuinely on the table for large-scale fraud, and there is a two-year mandatory minimum only where the value exceeds $1,000,000 on an indictable prosecution. Many fraud files resolve with non-custodial outcomes — or without a conviction.

What to do if you have been charged with fraud

1. Say as little as possible. Be polite, provide identification if required, but exercise your right to remain silent. Do not try to explain or talk your way out of it.
2. Exercise your right to counsel. Ask to speak with a lawyer as soon as you are detained, arrested, or contacted by an investigator.
3. Preserve documents — do not destroy anything. Concealing or destroying records is itself an aggravating factor and can create new charges. Keep everything and give it to your lawyer.
4. Be careful at work. Avoid casual conversations with co-workers or managers about the allegation, and get advice before responding to any internal investigation.
5. Do not post about the case online and do not discuss the details in writing with friends.
6. If you are not a Canadian citizen, tell your lawyer immediately — with fraud over $5,000, it can change the entire strategy.
7. Write down a timeline of events in your own words while your memory is fresh, and share it only with your lawyer.

Why choose Kazandji Law for your fraud defence

Kazandji Law is a Toronto criminal and family law firm built on a proactive, no-nonsense approach with a genuine personal touch. Fraud cases reward preparation — the close reading of financial disclosure, a working command of Charter litigation and the Théroux elements, the judgment to know when to fight intent and when to steer a file toward a resolution that protects a career and a licence, and the willingness to work with forensic accountants when the numbers need to be taken apart. Our team brings that preparation to every fraud file, whether it is a first-time workplace allegation, a disputed benefit or mortgage application, or a complex investment matter the Crown is treating as large-scale fraud.

We appear in the Ontario Court of Justice and Superior Court of Justice locations across the Greater Toronto Area — including the criminal court at 10 Armoury Street in downtown Toronto — and we defend fraud charges wherever they arise: downtown Toronto, North York, Scarborough, Etobicoke, Markham, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Brampton, Hamilton, Newmarket, Oakville, and beyond. Our Toronto office is located at 180 John St., Unit 320. You can meet our team, review our case results, and explore our full range of criminal defence services — from fraud over $5,000 and fraud under $5,000 to credit card fraud, identity theft, and theft and property offences.

Frequently asked questions

Is fraud a criminal offence in Canada?

Yes. Fraud is a criminal offence under section 380 of the Criminal Code. It is committed when a person, by deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means, defrauds another of property, money, a valuable security, or any service. However, a charge is only an allegation — the Crown must prove both a dishonest act and resulting deprivation, along with a guilty mind, beyond a reasonable doubt.

What does the Crown have to prove for fraud?

Under R. v. Théroux, the Crown must prove two things about the conduct — a dishonest act (deceit, a falsehood, or other fraudulent means) and deprivation (actual loss or the placing of the victim's economic interests at risk) — and two things about the accused's mind: subjective knowledge of the dishonest act, and subjective knowledge that it could cause deprivation. Recklessness as to whether loss occurs is enough.

What is the difference between fraud over $5,000 and fraud under $5,000?

The dividing line is the value of the subject-matter. Fraud over $5,000 (or involving a testamentary instrument) is a straight indictable offence with a maximum of 14 years. Fraud not exceeding $5,000 is a hybrid offence, which the Crown can prosecute by indictment (maximum 2 years) or by summary conviction. The classification affects the penalty and the immigration consequences, so the alleged value is often heavily contested.

What is the maximum penalty for fraud in Canada?

For fraud over $5,000, the maximum is 14 years' imprisonment. For fraud not exceeding $5,000, the maximum on indictment is 2 years, or the general penalty on summary conviction. These are ceilings for the most serious cases; many fraud files, especially first offences and smaller amounts, resolve well below them.

Is there a mandatory minimum sentence for fraud?

Only in one situation. Under section 380(1.1), where a person is prosecuted on indictment and convicted of fraud, the court must impose a minimum of two years if the total value of the subject-matter of the offences exceeds $1,000,000. Outside that scenario, there is no mandatory minimum and the court has full discretion, including non-custodial options.

Can I be convicted of fraud if no one actually lost money?

Yes, potentially. The Supreme Court has held that deprivation includes placing the victim's economic interests at risk, not only actual loss. If the dishonest act genuinely exposed someone to a risk of loss, the deprivation element can be met even if no loss ultimately occurred.

What if the fraud was an honest mistake?

Genuine honest mistakes are a real defence, because fraud requires a guilty mind. If the conduct is better explained as an error, a misunderstanding of your authority, or good-faith reliance on someone else, the Crown may be unable to prove that you knew the act was dishonest and could cause loss. This is one of the most common and effective lines of defence in fraud cases.

Will paying back the money make the charge go away?

Not by itself. The offence is complete once the dishonest act and risk of deprivation occur, so repayment does not erase it. However, voluntary repayment before sentencing is often strong mitigation and can meaningfully improve the outcome, sometimes including resolution without a conviction. Restitution can also be ordered by the court under section 738.

How does a fraud conviction affect immigration status?

It can be very serious for non-citizens. Under section 36 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a conviction for an offence punishable by a maximum of at least 10 years is treated as serious criminality. Because fraud over $5,000 carries a 14-year maximum, it qualifies regardless of the actual sentence, which can lead to loss of status with limited appeal rights. If you are not a citizen, raise this with your lawyer at the very start.

Is fraud always prosecuted by the same Crown as drug charges?

No. Most Criminal Code fraud in Ontario is prosecuted by the provincial Crown (the Ministry of the Attorney General), whereas drug offences under the federal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act are prosecuted by federal prosecutors. Jurisdiction over fraud is technically concurrent, and the federal Crown does prosecute fraud in some specific contexts, but the province handles the large majority.

What is the difference between identity theft and identity fraud?

They are separate offences. Identity theft (section 402.2) is obtaining or possessing another person's identity information with intent to use it to commit an offence involving fraud, deceit, or falsehood; its maximum is 5 years by indictment. Identity fraud (section 403) is fraudulently personating another person for advantage or to obtain property; its maximum is 10 years by indictment. Both are hybrid offences.

How much does a fraud lawyer cost?

Fees depend on the complexity of the case — a single-count workplace allegation is very different from a multi-count, document-heavy financial file — and on whether it resolves early or proceeds to a contested trial. Kazandji Law offers a free initial consultation and will give you a clear picture of the process and the likely cost before you decide anything.

Sources & legal references

1. Criminal Code of Canada (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46), s. 380 (fraud; over/not-over $5,000 split; s. 380(1.1) minimum punishment where total value exceeds $1,000,000): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-380.html.
2. R. v. Théroux, 1993 CanLII 134 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5 (elements of fraud — dishonest act and deprivation; subjective mens rea; deprivation includes risk of loss); companion case R. v. Zlatic, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 29: canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1993/1993canlii134.
3. Criminal Code, s. 380.1 (aggravating circumstances on sentencing for fraud; employment/reputation not mitigating where used in the offence; duty to state factors on the record): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-380.1.html.
4. Criminal Code, s. 738 (restitution to victims): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-738.html.
5. Criminal Code, s. 737.1 (court must consider a restitution order; reasons required on the record where a victim seeks restitution and none is ordered): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-737.1.html.
6. Criminal Code, s. 739.1 (offender's means do not prevent a restitution order): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-739.1.html.
7. Criminal Code, s. 380.2 (prohibition order — employment or volunteering involving authority over another's money or property): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-380.2.html.
8. Criminal Code, s. 361 (definition of "false pretence"): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-361.html.
9. Criminal Code, s. 362 (obtaining by false pretence or fraud; over $5,000 punishable by up to 10 years by indictment): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-362.html.
10. Criminal Code, s. 402.2 (identity theft — obtaining, possessing, or trafficking in identity information; hybrid, maximum 5 years by indictment): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-402.2.html.
11. Criminal Code, s. 403 (identity fraud — fraudulent personation; hybrid, maximum 10 years by indictment): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-403.html.
12. Criminal Code, s. 386 (fraudulent registration of title; hybrid, maximum 5 years by indictment): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-386.html.
13. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27), s. 36 (serious criminality — offence punishable by a maximum term of at least 10 years, or a term of more than six months imposed): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.5/section-36.html.
14. R. v. Stinchcombe, 1991 CanLII 45 (SCC) (Crown's duty of disclosure): canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1991/1991canlii45.
15. R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32 (three-part test for exclusion of evidence under Charter s. 24(2)): canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2009/2009scc32.

Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about Canadian and Ontario fraud law and is not legal advice. Laws, penalties, and prosecutorial policies change, and how they apply depends on the specific facts of your case. For advice about your situation, contact a lawyer. Contacting Kazandji Law does not create a solicitor-client relationship until a retainer is signed.