• Vancouver at night

Employee Theft

The Charge

People accused of stealing from their employer are generally charged with theft or fraud offences pursuant to s. 322 or s. 380 of the Criminal Code. The offence is either for an amount over $5000 or under $5000. Theft from an employer is a very serious offence because it involves a breach of trust, which under s. 718 of the Code, is deemed to be an “aggravating circumstance.” A conviction for employee theft can have extremely serious consequences. Where the amount is in excess of $5000, the Crown will generally seek a jail sentence. Due to some relatively recent amendments to the Criminal Code, it is not possible for a court to impose a conditional sentence (house arrest) for a theft or fraud over $5000 offence. Because people charged with employee theft face the very real possibility of a jail sentence, it is imperative that they seek the assistance of experienced defence counsel as soon as possible.

The Investigation

Every employee theft case is different, but in the majority of cases, the scenario goes something like this:

Our client is at work and is abruptly escorted by a manager or security officer into a meeting room. There, they are confronted with an accusation that they have been stealing or otherwise misappropriating company property or funds. Because this is not yet a police investigation, the employee is not usually advised of their rights under the Charter to remain silent or to immediately be allowed to call a lawyer. It is certainly not uncommon for people in this situation to make incriminating comments. Typically, the employee is fired from their position and told that police will be contacted and the investigation will continue. It is our experience that the employer does not yet understand the scope of their loss and will therefore try hard to obtain a confession and an agreement to repay the funds.

A person facing an accusation of stealing from their employer usually faces pressure of both a criminal charge as well as a civil action taken by the employer who wants to recover their loss. Where the offence is theft or fraud over $5000 there is a very real prospect of jail. It is therefore certainly very prudent to obtain advice from a lawyer who is experienced in defending these types of charges.

Recent Successes

R. v. A.K. & N.L. – 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. H.L. – 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. R. A. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Given our client's circumstances and the circumstances of the allegation, whether it was in the public interest for Crown to continue the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown that persuaaded Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. C.W. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault x2 (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the prosecution and whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown counsel which led to Crown deciding to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. S.N. – Quesnel Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (by choking); assault; mischief to property.
Issue: Whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the prosecution and whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel which led to Crown deciding to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. S.G. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether the police investigation met the Crown's charge approval standard.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to the RCMP investigator which ultimately led to police recommending that no charges be approved. No criminal prosecution. No further "no contact" condition. File closed.

R. v. M.L. – Prince George Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was contrary to the public interest for our client to be discharged on conditions.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to the Court which resulted in our client being granted a conditional discharge rather than the conviction sought by Crown counsel.

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.

The Defence

We are always pleased when clients contact us immediately after being investigated for employee theft. This is because we can offer these clients the very best potential outcome – the chance of no charges being approved at all. In our many years of defending employee theft charges, we have learned that many employers are more interested in recovering their losses through civil means than they are in pursuing criminal charges. In these cases, and even in cases that have already gone to police and Crown has approved charges, our goal is to obtain a civil settlement where appropriate to do so. This entails our client repaying the employer on the employer’s promise to provide a full release from further civil liability. In many cases, civil compensation is sufficient and criminal charges are not pursued. In cases that do proceed, restitution will be considered a mitigating factor on sentencing.

In cases where Crown has approved employee theft charges, we have been successful in obtaining non-custodial sentences for our clients. For theft/fraud under $5000 cases, we have obtained conditional discharges for several of our clients. Even in theft/fraud over $5000 cases, we have obtained suspended sentences (probation) and conditional sentence orders, by persuading Crown to charge the offence as a series of theft under $5000 charges rather than a single count of theft over $5000.

Of course in some cases, in the face of strong Crown evidence, we have no alternative but to go to trial to defend our client. Often, employee theft cases are complex matters with regard to the laws of evidence. We are well versed in the various technical rules of evidence as set out in the Canada Evidence Act. These rules include various provisions that the Crown must comply with when they want to introduce business records, banking records, or other documents into the trial record. Our experience allows us to develop arguments at trial which are aimed at protecting our client’s rights to have a fair trial as guaranteed by the Charter.

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.