• Vancouver at night

Mischief to Property

The Charge

Under s. 430 of the Criminal Code, a person is guilty of mischief if they willfully:

  • Destroy or damage property; or
  • Render property dangerous, inoperative or ineffective; or they
  • Interfere with another person’s use, enjoyment or operation of property.

This offence is meant to protect property that belongs to others. Generally, unless there ae aggravating factors present, a conviction for mischief of property valued at over $5000 will subject the accused to being prosecuted by indictment with a maximum jail sentence of two years. If the property is valued at under $5000, the accused can be found guilty of a summary offence and is liable to imprisonment for up to two years jail, less a day. There is no mandatory minimum sentence that is required.

The Code sets out situations where mischief to property has aggravating aspects, which will call for more serious penalties. Where actual danger to life is created by the mischief, the accused, on conviction, is subject to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Where the mischief offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, gender identity, or disability, the accused is subject to being prosecuted by indictment with a maximum sentence of 10 years in jail.

The Investigation

To prove a mischief charge, police must gather evidence which includes establishing that the property in question belongs to a person other than the suspect. Additionally, police will need to prove that the damage was caused willfully by the suspect i.e., that they intentionally caused the damage. Typical mischief charges include acts such as causing intentional damage to a vehicle by striking it, kicking it, or “keying” it. Mischief also includes acts such as applying graffiti to public or private property or damaging the property of a spouse or other person in a moment of anger.

Because a mischief to property conviction requires intention or at least recklessness, police will typically seek to obtain a confession from their suspect in order to strengthen their case. As experienced property crime lawyers, we are able to help by providing advice to our clients regarding their rights under the Charter, including their right to remain silent.

Recent Successes

R. v. L.C. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charge: Fraud Over $5000 investigation.
Issue: Given our client's cooperation and repayment of the disputed funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a police investigation and a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charges recommended. No criminal record.

R. v. M.R. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the information Mr. Mines provided to Crown about the circumstances of the alleged incident, whether there was a substatial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to not approve any charge with respect to this matter. No further bail conditions. No criminal record.

R. v. R.T. – Quesnel Provincial Court

Charges: Assault ; Mischief Under $5000 (reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given our client's personal circumstances, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the criminal charges upon our client agreeing to a 12 month peace bond and a 5 year firearms prohibition. No criminal record.

R. v. R. G. – Burnaby RCMP Investigation

Charge: Criminal Harassment.
Issue: Given our client's lack of criminal history and the lack of a police warning before the arrest and recommending the harassment charge, whether it was appropriate to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade police to issue a warning to our client rather than proceeding with acriminal prosecution. No criminal record.

R. v. N.H.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault by choking; break and enter; theft under $5000 and breach of bail x2 (reduced to peace bond).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to continue prosecuting the criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter stays. of proceedings on all criminal charges upon our client agreeing to a peace bond. No jail. No criminal record.

R. v. L.V.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a public interest in continuing with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines first made successful application to vary the "no contact" bail condition which allowed our client to return to the family home. Ultimately, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings, bringing the matter to an end. No criminal record.

R. v. K.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual assault; assault by choking; uttering threats (all reduced to peace bond).
Issue: Given information Mr. Johnston provided to Crown counsel about our client's rehabilitative efforts and the strength of the Crown's case, whether there was sufficient public interest in continuing the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnston was first able to persuade Crown to seek a peace bond rather than proceeding on the criminal charges. He was ultimately able to persuade Crown to withdraw the peace bond application. Stay of Proceedings on all charges. No jail. No criminal record. No peace bond.

R. v. C.B. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the material Mr. Mines was able to provide to Crown counsel. whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Our client pleaded not guilty to the criminal aasault charge and, after hearing Mr. Mines' submission on our client's behalf, the Court placed our client on a Peace Bond for a period of 12 months. No criminal record.

R. v. M.F. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Health insurance fraud investigation.
Issue: Given our client's civil settlement of the alleged false insurance claims. whether there was any public interest in proceeding with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to negotiate an appropriate civil settlement and repayment to the employer. No criminal prosecution.

R. v. V.H. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether or not it was contrary to the public interest for our client to be sentenced to a conditional discharge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through a course of rehabilitation. The Court granted our client the discharge and placed her on probation. No record of conviction.

R. v. J.M. – Abbotsford Provincial Court

Charge: Health insurance fraud investigation.
Issue: Given our client's civil settlement of the alleged false insurance claims. whether there was any public interest in proceeding with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate an appropriate civil settlement and repayment to the employer. No criminal prosecution.

R. v. K.D. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Mischief Under $5000 (reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given our client's background and rehabilitative efforts, whether it was in the oublic interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persude the criminal charge upon our client entering into a 12 month peace bond. No criminal record.

The Defence

Identification

To prove a mischief charge, the Crown must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the identity of the accused. In many circumstances, absent evidence from an eyewitness that is familiar to the accused, proving identity can be more difficult. As experienced defence lawyers, we understand the issues that can arise at trial regarding the frailties of eyewitness identification. For example, it is often very difficult for a person who has only caught a fleeting glimpse of a suspect to be able to identify them with certainty in the aftermath of the incident. In appropriate cases, we will challenge the Crown’s identification evidence, whether its source is from a witness or from forensic sources, such as fingerprints, shoeprints, video, photographs, or DNA.

We are always pleased when clients contact us in the early stages of being charged with a mischief offence. This is because, absent aggravating factors, we can offer these clients the very best potential outcome – the potential of persuading Crown counsel to not approve any charge at all. Depending on the circumstances of the offence and our client, the case may be dealt with extra judicially so that, in the result, there is no conviction and no criminal record.

Alternative Measures

In appropriate cases, we will obtain a full background briefing from our client and provide submissions to Crown counsel requesting that, rather than proceeding with a criminal prosecution, they allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program, which is, literally, an alternative to the court system. Where a person takes responsibility for a relatively minor criminal act, they may be able to avoid a criminal record by agreeing to complete restorative justice conditions such as community work service. As experienced defence lawyers, we are able to make “without prejudice” requests to Crown counsel to have our clients accepted into the Alternative Measures Program in order to avoid a criminal record.

Start with a free consultation.

If you are being investigated by police or if you’ve been charged with a criminal or driving offence, don’t face the problem alone. Being accused of an offence is stressful. The prospects of a criminal record or jail sentence can be daunting. Even if you think there is no defence, we may be able to help. To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver lawyers, contact us now.