Criminal Defence · Theft (Criminal Code s. 322 & 334)

Theft Lawyer in Toronto

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

A theft charge in Toronto often begins in the most ordinary place — a self-checkout at a grocery store, a change room at a mall on Bloor Street, a stockroom where a cash discrepancy was noticed, an online marketplace deal that went sideways. What feels like a misunderstanding or a moment of poor judgment becomes a criminal file that can follow you into job applications, professional licences, border crossings, and immigration decisions. The reassuring reality is that a charge is only an allegation, and theft cases — especially first-time, lower-value ones — are far more defensible than most people fear.

At Kazandji Law, our criminal defence team represents people charged with theft under $5,000, theft over $5,000, shoplifting, and related property offences across Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area. This page explains what you are actually facing under the Criminal Code, what the prosecution has to prove, the realistic range of outcomes, and the defences that most often lead to a charge being withdrawn, diverted, or resolved without a conviction.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 that reassures most first-time clients: theft under $5,000 is treated by the courts as one of the offences most amenable to a non-criminal resolution. Prosecutors in Ontario routinely divert appropriate first offences, and even where a matter proceeds, a judge can grant a discharge that leaves no conviction on your record. But those outcomes have to be secured — usually before any plea — which is exactly why early, strategic advice matters.

What is theft under Canadian law?

Theft is defined in section 322(1) of the Criminal Code. The section states that "every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent" to do one of four things — most commonly, "to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it."^[1]

That definition is more demanding than people assume. Theft is not simply "taking something that isn't yours." Every one of its components — fraudulently, without colour of right, and with intent to deprive — is a distinct element the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. An honest mistake, a genuine belief that you had a right to the property, or the absence of any intention to permanently or temporarily deprive the owner can each be fatal to the charge.

Section 322 also tells us when a theft is complete: under s. 322(2), "a person commits theft when, with intent to steal anything, he moves it or causes it to move or to be moved, or begins to cause it to become movable."^[1] This is why a shopper can, in theory, be charged before leaving a store — although, as explained below, whether the mental element was present at that moment is frequently the whole battleground.

The elements the Crown must prove

To secure a conviction for theft, the Crown must establish each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• A taking or conversion of property. The accused took the property, or converted it (dealt with property already in their hands as though it were their own).
• Fraudulently. The act must be dishonest — done with a wrongful intent, not by accident or oversight.
• Without colour of right. The accused had no honest belief in a legal right to the property (discussed in detail below).
• Intent to deprive. The accused intended to deprive the owner — temporarily or absolutely — of the property or their interest in it, or to pledge it, or to deal with it so it could not be returned.

A useful feature of s. 322 for the defence is s. 322(4), which makes clear that the question whether property was "taken for the purpose of conversion" or was lawfully in the accused's possession "is not material." In plain terms, the analysis stays focused on the dishonest state of mind — and where that state of mind is genuinely in doubt, the charge is in trouble.

"Colour of right" — an honest belief in a claim to the property

"Colour of right" is one of the most important and least understood concepts in theft law. It is a claim of right that, if honestly held, negates the fraudulent intent the offence requires. Crucially, the belief does not have to be correct, reasonable, or legally sound — it only has to be genuinely held at the time. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in R. v. Dorosh (2003) confirmed that a colour of right can arise from a mistake of civil law or a mistake of fact, so long as it gives rise to an honest belief in a proprietary or possessory right to the thing in question.^[2] A related statutory provision, s. 429(2) of the Criminal Code, expressly preserves colour of right as a defence to a range of property offences.^[3]

This matters in real cases. A person who takes back property they honestly (even if mistakenly) believe is theirs, an employee who believed they were authorized to remove an item, a co-owner who took jointly owned goods — each may have a colour of right that defeats the charge. Once there is an "air of reality" to the defence, the burden is on the Crown to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.^[2]

Theft under $5,000 vs. theft over $5,000

The single most consequential fact in almost every theft case is the value of what was allegedly taken, because it determines the maximum penalty and how the case can be prosecuted. The punishment for theft is set out in section 334 of the Criminal Code.^[4]

A few points that matter in practice:

• Both categories are hybrid. Under s. 334, theft over $5,000 (or of a testamentary instrument) is punishable either as "an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years" or as "an offence punishable on summary conviction"; theft under $5,000 is punishable either as an indictable offence "liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years" or, again, "an offence punishable on summary conviction."^[4] The Crown chooses which route to take, and that election shapes the entire trajectory of the case.
• The summary-conviction maximum is not stated in s. 334 itself. It is governed by the general penalty provision, section 787, which sets a default maximum of a fine of not more than $5,000, or imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day, or both.^[5]
• These maximums are ceilings, not typical sentences. They exist for the worst cases. For a first-time, low-value theft, the realistic conversation is almost always about diversion, a discharge, or an outright withdrawal — not custody.
• There are no mandatory minimum sentences for theft. A judge has full discretion to impose a proportionate, individualized sentence, and for lower-value first offences that discretion is routinely used to keep a conviction off the record entirely.

Shoplifting is a form of theft

"Shoplifting" is not a separate offence in the Criminal Code — it is prosecuted as theft under s. 322, and because retail merchandise is almost always worth $5,000 or less, the great majority of shoplifting charges are laid as theft under $5,000. The same elements apply: the Crown must prove a dishonest taking, without colour of right, with intent to deprive the store of its property. Common scenarios include concealing merchandise, switching or altering price tags, "sweethearting" at a cashier, and under-scanning at a self-checkout. In each, the defence often turns on whether the Crown can prove the required intent at the moment in question — distraction, confusion at a self-checkout, or an honest mistake are not theft.

Deemed theft: sections 330 and 332

The Criminal Code also treats certain breaches of trust as theft, even where nothing was physically "taken" in the ordinary sense. These provisions frequently arise in employment, fiduciary, and financial contexts.

• Theft by a person required to account (s. 330). Every one commits theft who, having received something on terms requiring them to account for or pay it (or its proceeds) to another person, "fraudulently fails to account for or pay it" accordingly.^[6] This can capture, for example, someone entrusted with funds who dishonestly fails to remit them.
• Misappropriation of money held under direction (s. 332). Every one commits theft who receives money or valuable security with a direction that it be applied to a specified purpose, and then "fraudulently and contrary to the direction" applies it to another purpose.^[7] The Supreme Court of Canada considered this offence in R. v. Skalbania (1997), holding that an intentional misappropriation — a deliberate application of the funds contrary to the direction — supplies the required mental element.^[8]

Both are still "theft" and are punished under s. 334 according to the value involved. Because they hinge on fraudulent conduct and a specific dishonest intent, they can overlap with, or be charged alongside, fraud offences — and the same evidentiary weaknesses that defend a fraud allegation often defend these charges.

The close cousin: possession of property obtained by crime

Theft charges are frequently accompanied — or replaced — by a charge of possession of property obtained by crime under section 354 of the Criminal Code. That offence is committed by anyone who "has in his possession any property or thing or any proceeds" knowing that all or part of it "was obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from" the commission of an indictable offence in Canada (or an equivalent act abroad).^[9]

The punishment provision, section 355, mirrors the theft structure exactly: if the subject matter is a testamentary instrument or worth more than $5,000, the offence is punishable by indictment (maximum 10 years) or on summary conviction; if the value is not more than $5,000, it is punishable by indictment (maximum two years) or on summary conviction.^[10] The essential battleground here is knowledge — the Crown must prove you actually knew the property was stolen or crime-derived, and mere possession of something later shown to be stolen is not enough. If you are facing this charge, our possession of stolen property lawyers defend these files specifically.

The reality of a shoplifting arrest: loss prevention, police, and what happens next

Most shoplifting files begin not with police, but with a store's loss prevention officer (LPO). Understanding what they can and cannot do helps you protect yourself.

Can a store detain you? Citizen's arrest under s. 494

Loss prevention staff are not police. Their authority comes from the citizen's arrest power in section 494 of the Criminal Code, which allows the owner of property (or a person authorized by the owner) to arrest without a warrant a person they find committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.^[11] The key phrase is "finds committing" — the person must, in effect, be caught in the act. In 2012, the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act broadened this power to allow an arrest within a reasonable time after the offence, where it was not feasible for a peace officer to make the arrest.^[12]

A lawful citizen's arrest is subject to strict limits: the person must actually witness the offence (or have reasonable grounds), must turn the arrested person over to police "forthwith," and may use only force that is reasonable in the circumstances.^[11] Where loss prevention exceeds these limits — a detention on a mere hunch, an unreasonable delay, excessive force, or an unlawful search of your bag or person — that conduct can become an important part of the defence.

What you should (and should not) do

If you are stopped by loss prevention, you are generally required to provide identification if you are being lawfully arrested, but you are not required to give a statement, sign a confession, or answer questions about what happened. Store-prepared "admission" forms and apology letters are frequently the strongest evidence the Crown later relies on. You have the right to remain silent — use it, be polite, and ask to speak to a lawyer.

The "civil demand" letter — separate from the criminal case

After a shoplifting incident, many national retailers send a civil recovery demand letter — often from a law firm, typically demanding several hundred dollars for "costs" — whether or not any merchandise was recovered. It is essential to understand two things. First, this civil demand is entirely separate from any criminal charge: paying it does not make a criminal charge go away, and the store cannot force payment without actually suing you in civil court, which is rarely pursued. Second, ignoring it does not create a criminal consequence. Ontario's Justice for Children and Youth and other advocates have documented these letters and caution that they do not create a legal obligation to pay simply by being received.^[13] Before responding to any such letter — or paying anything — speak to a lawyer.

Diversion and discharges: why many first offences leave no record

People charged with theft, and especially first-time shoplifting, often assume a conviction is inevitable. For a first offence involving a modest value, that is usually far from the truth. Ontario's justice system offers several off-ramps, and identifying the right one early is one of the most valuable things a defence lawyer does.

Diversion and alternative measures

For low-value, first-time theft, Ontario Crowns frequently agree to diversion (also called direct accountability or an alternative-measures program). Typical conditions include completing community service, making a charitable donation, attending counselling, or writing a reflective assignment. On successful completion, the charge is withdrawn — leaving no conviction and no finding of guilt. Diversion is a common and appropriate outcome for a first shoplifting charge, and securing it is often the central goal of the defence.

Absolute and conditional discharges

Even where a matter proceeds to a finding of guilt, a court can grant a discharge under section 730 of the Criminal Code. Under s. 730(1), a court may, "if it considers it to be in the best interests of the accused and not contrary to the public interest, instead of convicting the accused," direct that the accused be discharged absolutely or on conditions. Section 730(3) provides that a discharged offender "shall be deemed not to have been convicted of the offence."^[14] An absolute discharge registers no conviction; a conditional discharge achieves the same result after a period of probation is completed. Because theft under $5,000 carries no mandatory minimum and is not punishable by 14 years or life, it is squarely eligible for a discharge, which makes this a realistic target in many first-offence cases.

Peace bonds and other resolutions

In some cases a charge can be resolved on a peace bond or another creative resolution that avoids a conviction. The right path depends entirely on the strength of the Crown's case, your background, and the value and circumstances of the alleged theft.

The consequences of a theft record beyond the sentence

Clients are often most anxious about jail, but for theft under $5,000 the more realistic and lasting harms usually lie elsewhere. Theft is widely regarded as a "crime of dishonesty," which makes a conviction especially damaging in contexts where trust and integrity matter. A criminal record for theft can affect:

• Employment and professional licensing. A theft conviction shows up on background and vulnerable-sector checks and is treated as a red flag by employers, bonding companies, and regulators — particularly for roles involving money, inventory, or a fiduciary duty (finance, retail management, healthcare, law, accounting, and others).
• Immigration status. This is critical for non-citizens. For a permanent resident, a conviction for an offence punishable by a maximum of at least 10 years — which includes theft over $5,000 and possession over $5,000 — can constitute "serious criminality" under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and lead to loss of status with limited or no appeal. Even lower-value theft can create inadmissibility concerns for foreign nationals. If you are not a Canadian citizen, tell your lawyer immediately — avoiding a conviction (through diversion or a discharge) may matter far more than the sentence itself. See our page on criminal charges and immigration consequences.
• Travel, especially to the United States. U.S. border officers treat crimes involving "moral turpitude" — a category that includes theft — seriously, and a record (or even an admission) can complicate or bar entry.
• Education, housing, and volunteering. Schools, landlords, and volunteer organizations increasingly run record checks, and a dishonesty offence carries particular stigma.
• Reputation and future record checks. A theft conviction can shape how you are perceived for years, long after any fine or probation is complete.

These downstream effects are exactly why it is worth fighting a charge that looks "minor" on paper. The gap between a withdrawal or discharge and a registered conviction for dishonesty can shape a person's career and life.

The theft court process in Toronto, step by step

Understanding the sequence of a theft case helps you see where a defence can be built. Most files move through the same stages in the Ontario Court of Justice.

1. The allegation and arrest or summons

A theft case may begin with an arrest at the scene (common in shoplifting), or later, by a summons or a phone call from police after an internal investigation (common in workplace theft). In shoplifting matters, the initial "arrest" is often a citizen's arrest by loss prevention, followed by police attendance. How the detention and any search were conducted can be significant.

2. Release or bail

For a straightforward first theft-under-$5,000 charge, most people are released by police on an appearance notice or an undertaking, sometimes with conditions such as staying away from a particular store. More serious files — a large value, a prior record, or related charges — 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).^[15] In a theft case, disclosure typically includes the loss prevention or investigator's report, surveillance video, the officers' notes, any statements or admission forms, receipts and inventory or point-of-sale records, and photographs of the recovered property. A meticulous review of this material — especially the video and the exact basis for the value attributed to the property — is where most winning defences begin.

4. Crown pre-trial and resolution discussions

Most theft cases involve a Crown pre-trial, where your lawyer tests the strength of the case and explores whether it can be diverted, withdrawn, or resolved without a conviction. For first-offence, low-value theft, this stage is very often where the matter is resolved on favourable terms — long before any trial.

5. Charter applications and trial

If the case does not resolve and there are viable issues, it proceeds to trial. Contested theft trials frequently turn on the sufficiency of the evidence of intent, the reliability of surveillance footage and eyewitness identification, and — where an unlawful detention or search occurred — a Charter application to exclude evidence. From first appearance to conclusion, a contested theft case commonly takes several months.

How Kazandji Law defends theft charges

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

• No intent to steal. Theft requires a dishonest intent to deprive the owner. Distraction at a self-checkout, an item left in a cart or under a stroller, confusion about what was paid for, or an honest mistake are not theft. Where the Crown cannot prove the required intent beyond a reasonable doubt, the charge fails.
• Colour of right / honest claim of right. If you honestly believed you had a right to the property — even mistakenly — that belief negates the fraudulent intent, as R. v. Dorosh confirms.^[2]
• Identity and the reliability of the evidence. Surveillance video is often grainy, partial, or ambiguous. We test whether the Crown can actually prove it was you, and whether the footage truly shows the conduct alleged.
• Challenging the value. Because $5,000 is the dividing line, the value attributed to the property can be decisive. We scrutinize how value was calculated (retail vs. actual, tags vs. receipts) and, where appropriate, argue the case belongs in the lower category — or that the value is not proven at all.
• Unlawful detention, search, or seizure (Charter ss. 8 and 9). Where loss prevention or police detained you without proper grounds, searched you or your belongings unlawfully, or held you beyond what the law permits, the resulting evidence may be challenged.
• Improperly obtained statements (Charter s. 10(b)). Store admission forms, apology notes, and statements taken without a real opportunity to consult counsel can be attacked and, in appropriate cases, excluded.
• 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): the seriousness of the state's Charter-infringing conduct, the impact on the accused's protected interests, and society's interest in a trial on the merits.^[16]
• Securing diversion or a discharge. Where the evidence is strong, the goal shifts to protecting your record — negotiating diversion, a withdrawal, or a discharge so that you emerge without a conviction for dishonesty.

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 theft charges

"It was under $100, so it's not a real criminal charge." Not so. Theft of any value is a criminal offence under s. 322. The value affects the maximum penalty and the Crown's election, but even a low-value shoplifting charge is a criminal matter that can leave a record if mishandled.

"I paid the store's civil demand letter, so the charge is gone." Untrue. The civil demand is separate from the criminal case. Paying it does not withdraw a charge, and the store generally cannot force payment without suing you.^[13]

"A first shoplifting charge means a criminal record." Frequently untrue. First-time, low-value theft is often resolved through diversion (charge withdrawn) or an absolute or conditional discharge (no conviction registered) under s. 730.^[14]

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

"They didn't read me my rights, so the charge is void." Not automatically. A breach of your right to counsel can lead a court to exclude certain evidence, but it does not by itself erase the charge. The consequences depend on the facts and the Grant analysis.^[16]

"There's no point fighting a small theft case." The "small" case is often the most winnable — and the stakes (a dishonesty record, immigration, employment, travel) are anything but small.

What to do if you have been charged with theft

1. Say as little as possible. Be polite and provide identification if you are lawfully arrested, but exercise your right to remain silent. Do not sign any store "admission" or apology form.
2. Exercise your right to counsel. Ask to speak with a lawyer as soon as you are detained or arrested.
3. Write down everything you remember while it is fresh — what you did, what was said, how you were stopped and searched, who was present, and the timeline.
4. Preserve helpful evidence. Keep all paperwork from the arrest and release, and save receipts, bank or card records, and any messages that support your account. Do not delete anything.
5. Do not respond to a civil demand letter or pay anything before getting legal advice — and do not assume it affects the criminal case.
6. Do not post about the case online and do not discuss the details in writing with others.
7. If you are not a Canadian citizen, tell your lawyer immediately — it can change the entire strategy.

Why choose Kazandji Law for your theft defence

Kazandji Law is a Toronto criminal and family law firm built on a proactive, no-nonsense approach with a genuine personal touch. Theft cases reward preparation — the close reading of surveillance video and disclosure, a working command of the elements of s. 322 and the colour-of-right defence, familiarity with how Ontario Crowns approach diversion for first offenders, and the judgment to know when to run a trial and when to steer a file into a resolution that protects your record. Our team brings that preparation to every theft file, whether it is a first-time shoplifting charge, a workplace or breach-of-trust allegation, or a theft-over-$5,000 matter with serious exposure.

We appear in the Ontario Court of Justice and Superior Court locations across the Greater Toronto Area — including the consolidated criminal court at 10 Armoury Street in downtown Toronto — and we defend theft charges wherever they arise: downtown Toronto, North York, Scarborough, Etobicoke, Thornhill, Vaughan, Markham, 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 related theft and property-offence services — from fraud and identity theft to possession of stolen property.

Frequently asked questions

Is theft a criminal offence in Canada?

Yes. Theft is a criminal offence under section 322 of the Criminal Code, and it applies to property of any value. The value affects the maximum penalty and how the Crown can prosecute the case, but even low-value shoplifting is a criminal matter. That said, a charge does not always lead to a conviction — first offences are frequently resolved through diversion or a discharge that leaves no record.

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

The dividing line is the value of what was allegedly stolen. Theft of property worth $5,000 or less is theft under $5,000; theft of property worth more than $5,000 (or of any testamentary instrument, such as a will) is the more serious category. Both are hybrid offences, but the maximum penalty by indictment is two years for theft under $5,000 and 10 years for theft over $5,000.

What is the maximum penalty for theft?

Under section 334 of the Criminal Code, theft over $5,000 (or of a testamentary instrument) is punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment on indictment, and theft under $5,000 by up to two years on indictment. Both can instead be prosecuted by summary conviction, where the general maximum under section 787 is a fine of up to $5,000 and/or up to two years less a day. These are ceilings for serious cases; first-offence, low-value theft is rarely sentenced anywhere near them.

Is shoplifting the same as theft?

Yes. "Shoplifting" is not a separate offence — it is prosecuted as theft under section 322, and because store merchandise is almost always worth $5,000 or less, most shoplifting charges are laid as theft under $5,000. The Crown must still prove a dishonest taking, without colour of right, with intent to deprive the store.

Will a first theft or shoplifting charge give me a criminal record?

Not necessarily. For a first offence involving a modest value, Ontario Crowns frequently agree to diversion, after which the charge is withdrawn. Even where a matter proceeds to a finding of guilt, a court can grant an absolute or conditional discharge under section 730, which means no conviction is registered. Preserving these outcomes is often the central goal of the defence.

Can a store or loss prevention officer legally detain me?

Yes, within limits. Loss prevention staff rely on the citizen's arrest power in section 494 of the Criminal Code, which allows the owner of property or their agent to arrest a person they find committing an offence on or in relation to that property. They must turn you over to police promptly and may use only reasonable force. If they detained you without proper grounds, searched you unlawfully, or used excessive force, that conduct can become part of your defence.

Do I have to pay the civil demand letter the store sent me?

Receiving a civil recovery demand letter does not create a legal obligation to pay it, and a store cannot force payment without actually suing you in civil court, which is uncommon. Just as importantly, the civil demand is separate from any criminal charge — paying it does not make a criminal charge disappear. Speak to a lawyer before responding or paying anything.

What is "colour of right" and can it get my theft charge dropped?

Colour of right is an honest belief that you had a legal right to the property. Because theft requires that the taking be "without colour of right," a genuinely held belief — even a mistaken one — can negate the intent the offence requires. As R. v. Dorosh confirms, the belief does not have to be reasonable or correct, only honest. Where there is an air of reality to the defence, the Crown must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

What is the difference between theft and possession of stolen property?

Theft (s. 322) is about dishonestly taking or converting property. Possession of property obtained by crime (s. 354) is about knowingly possessing property you know was stolen or crime-derived. The punishment structure under section 355 mirrors theft — up to 10 years for value over $5,000 and up to two years for value under $5,000 — and the key issue is usually whether the Crown can prove you actually knew the property was stolen.

Can theft charges affect my immigration status?

Yes, potentially seriously. For a permanent resident, a conviction for an offence with a maximum penalty of at least 10 years — which includes theft over $5,000 — can amount to "serious criminality" under immigration law and lead to loss of status. Even lower-value theft can create inadmissibility concerns for foreign nationals. If you are not a citizen, raise this with your lawyer at the very start, because avoiding a conviction may be the most important objective.

Should I just plead guilty to get it over with?

Not before getting advice. Because the best outcomes — diversion, a withdrawal, or a discharge — usually have to be secured before a plea, and because theft is a dishonesty offence with lasting consequences, pleading guilty quickly can cost you far more than the case itself. A lawyer can often protect your record in ways that are no longer available once a conviction is entered.

How much does a theft lawyer cost?

Fees depend on the complexity of the case and whether it resolves early through diversion 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. 322 (theft — definition and when completed): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-322.html.
2. R. v. Dorosh, 2003 SKCA 134 (colour of right; honest belief in a proprietary or possessory right; air of reality): canlii.org/en/sk/skca/doc/2003/2003skca134.
3. Criminal Code of Canada, s. 429(2) (colour of right as a defence to certain property offences): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-429.html.
4. Criminal Code of Canada, s. 334 (punishment for theft — over/under $5,000; hybrid election; 10-year and 2-year maximums): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-334.html.
5. Criminal Code of Canada, s. 787 (general penalty on summary conviction — fine of not more than $5,000 and/or imprisonment for not more than two years less a day): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-787.html.
6. Criminal Code of Canada, s. 330 (theft by a person required to account): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-330.html.
7. Criminal Code of Canada, s. 332 (misappropriation of money held under direction): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-332.html.
8. R. v. Skalbania, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 995, 1997 CanLII 337 (SCC) (s. 332 misappropriation; intentional misappropriation supplies the mental element): canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1997/1997canlii337.
9. Criminal Code of Canada, s. 354 (possession of property obtained by crime — knowledge requirement): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-354.html.
10. Criminal Code of Canada, s. 355 (punishment for possession of property obtained by crime — over/under $5,000; 10-year and 2-year maximums): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-355.html.
11. Criminal Code of Canada, s. 494 (arrest without warrant by any person; property owner's power; delivery to a peace officer): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-494.html.
12. Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, S.C. 2012, c. 9 (amending s. 494 to permit arrest within a reasonable time after the offence): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/annualstatutes/2012_9/fulltext.html.
13. Justice for Children and Youth, "Shoplifting Demand Letters" (civil recovery demand letters do not create a legal obligation to pay and are separate from any criminal charge): jfcy.org/en/rights/hot-topics-shoplifting/.
14. Criminal Code of Canada, s. 730 (conditional and absolute discharge; discharged offender deemed not to have been convicted): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-730.html.
15. R. v. Stinchcombe, 1991 CanLII 45 (SCC) (Crown's duty of disclosure): canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1991/1991canlii45.
16. 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 theft law and is not legal advice. Laws, penalties, and prosecutorial practices 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.