• 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. K.A. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether the complainant and the Crown witnesses gave reliable and crdible evidence at trial.
Result: After vigorous cross examination, the trail judge accepted Mr. Gauthier's submissions that Crown counsel had failed to prove its case. Not guilty verdict. No criminal record.

R. vs. X.L. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether the information police provided to Crown counsel would cause Crown to conclude there was a substantial likelihood of obtaining a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines provided information to Crown on our client's behalf. He was able to persuade Crown that our client was in fact the victim of an assault and was acting in self defence. No charges were approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.S. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Criminal Harassment (domestic).
Issue: Whether our client's mental state was such that Crown counsel could prove that she had the necessary level of intent to be convicted of a criminal offence.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide our client's medical documentation to Crown which resulted in Crown deciding not to proceed with the prosecution. Stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.X. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Driving while prohibited (MVA).
Issue: Whether the delay in approving the charge was relevant to our client's right to a speedy trial.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without a valid driver's licence. Rather than a 12 month driving prohibition and 10 penalty points, our client was sentenced to a 3 month driving prohibition and received only 3 penalty points.

R. vs. Q.B. – North Vancouver RCMP investigation

Charges: Sexual assault.
Issue: Whether or not the acts complained of were consensual or not, and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines provided further information to th einvestigator on our client's behalf that ultimately led to police declining to recommend any criminal charges. No charge was approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.G. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assult (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest for Crown counsel to continue the criminal prosecution.
Result: Based on the information Mr. Mines provide regarding our client, Crown directed a stay of proceedings bringing the matter to an end. No criminal record.

R. vs. E.E. and B.L. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charges: Fraud; misrepresentation.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal investigation and prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to negotiate a civil settlement on our clients' behalf resulting in an end to the matter. No police investigation. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Assault (x2). Issue: Whether our client was involved in a consensual fight; used reasonable force in defending himself, or was guilty of two counts of assault. Result: At the conclusion of  a three day trial and hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions on our client's behalf, the trial judge found our client not guilty on both counts. No jail. No criminal record.

R. v. K.T. – Delta Police Investigation

Charges: Criminal Harassment.Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide the police investigator with information about our client and the circumstances of the incidents that led to the discontinuation of the investigation. File closed. No criminal charges recommended.

R. vs. G.P. – New Westminster Provincial Court

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was contrary to the public interest for the court to grant our client a conditional discharge.
Result: Crown counsel's position was that our client should be sentenced to jail but after considering our client's positive pre-sentence report and Mr. Mines' submissions on our client's behalf, the court granted a conditional dischege. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. S.A. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there was contrary to public interest for  our client to be granted a conditional discharge.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown to not proceed on a  breach of bail allegation; to agree to not seek forfeiture of our client's firearms, and to make a joint submission for a conditional discharge with probation. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. R. A. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Fear of safety allegation (Peace Bond Application).
Issue: Given the information we were able to provide to Crown counsel, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the Peace Bond application against our client.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings so that our client was no longer subject to any of the restrictive conditions he was bound by.

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.