• 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. vs. A.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Driving while prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with this charge which carries a mandatory one year driving prohibition upon conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide Crown counsel with information that concluded our client was not at all responsible for the motor vehicle accident and persuaded Crown to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without aa valid license. Our client was sentenced to a fine and a 3 month driving prohibition.

R. vs. L.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Mischief Over $5000; Assault Police Officer.
Issue: Whether the sentence ought to emphasize punishment or rehabilitation in this matter where our client was alleged to have caused over $100,000 in damage to his building.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide Crown counsel with materials confirming the rehabilitative steps our client had taken for his mental health. The cRown stayed the assault police officer charge and, after hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge and placed him on probation. No jail.

R. vs. D.R. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings on the assault charge. Our client entered into a 12 month Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. B.Z. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to direct our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with this prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to provide Crown counsel with information that allowed him to persuade Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for Crown to proceed with the prosecution of this offence which carries a 12 month mandatory minimum driving prohibition.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without a valid licence. Our client received a $500 fine and a 30 day driving prohibition.

R. vs. M.L. - Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client sexually interfered with his niece.
Result: After a 6 day trial, Mr. Johnson was able to persuade the trial judge that there was reasonable doubt as to the complainant's credibility and reliability. Not guilty. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.R. - Richmond Provincial Court

Charges: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide Crown counsel with information that led Crown to resolve this matter with a Caution Letter. No charges were approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. B.R. - Vancouver Youth Court

Charges: Assault Causing Bodily Harm; Assault with a Weapon.
Issue: Whether our client was acting in self defence when he injured the complainant with a knife during an altercation.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel that resulted in Crown declining to approve any charges. No criminal record.

R. v. C.C. - Surrey provincial Court

Charges: Impaired Driving, Dangerous Driving Causing Death. Issues: Whether police breached our client's Charter rights during the investigation; whether the court would accept the Crown's sentencing submission.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that police breached our client's right against an unlawful seizure of his breath samples. This resulted in the Crown's inability to prove the Impaired Driving / Over .08 offences.  The Crown had originally been seeking up to 4.5 years jail, but sought a one year jail sentence on the Dangerous Driving Causing Death charge. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court found that 5 months was the appropriate sentence.

R. vs. B.S. - North Vancouver RCMP Investigation

.Charge: Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the proposed charge.
Result: After Mr. Johnson made  representations to the investing officer, police advised that no charges would be forwarded to Crown counsel. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge, which carries a one year mandatory minimum driving prohibition upon conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of driving without a valid drivers license. The court agreed with Mr. Mines' submissions and imposed a fine but did not impose any driving prohibition.

R. vs. N.A. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to allow our client to plead to the lesser offence of driving without a valid driver's license. Rather than face a mandatory minimum 12 month driving prohibition, our client was sentenced to a fine. No driving prohibition.  

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.