Theft and fraud charges in Ontario are sorted by a single number. Five thousand dollars separates the two levels of each offence, and it changes the maximum sentence, the procedure and the immigration consequence.
About this work
Because it changes the offence rather than just the sentence. Below it, theft and fraud both carry a maximum of two years on indictment and can be prosecuted summarily. Above it, theft carries ten years and fraud carries fourteen.
That difference runs through everything. It affects the mode of trial available, the Crown's approach to resolution, and the range a court is working within. It also matters a great deal outside the criminal court, because inadmissibility under immigration law turns on the maximum term available for the offence.
Value is therefore something to examine rather than accept. How the alleged loss was calculated, whether it aggregates separate incidents that should be charged separately, whether it uses retail or actual value, and whether items are being counted twice are all real questions in a case that sits near the line.
A testamentary instrument is treated as above the line regardless of its value, which catches cases involving wills and similar documents that would otherwise be modest.
Side by side
6 points of difference
Both offences split at $5,000, and fraud is treated more seriously than theft at the upper level. A testamentary instrument counts as over the line whatever it is worth.
The route
6 stages, each with its own clock
The provisions below are from the Criminal Code. Value decides the level of the offence, and the level decides the maximum, the available procedure and much of the immigration analysis.
Taking or converting anything, fraudulently and without colour of right, with intent to deprive the owner of it temporarily or absolutely, to pledge it, to part with it under a condition that may not be met, or to deal with it so it cannot be restored.
A person commits theft when, with intent to steal, they move the thing or begin to cause it to become movable. Concealment is not required, and secrecy is expressly irrelevant.
Over $5,000, or a testamentary instrument: indictable with a maximum of ten years, or summary. Not more than $5,000: indictable with a maximum of two years, or summary.
By deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defrauding the public or any person of property, money, a valuable security or any service. It is wider than theft and does not require anything to be taken.
Where the subject matter exceeds $5,000, or is a testamentary instrument, fraud is indictable with a maximum of fourteen years. Below that it is indictable with a maximum of two years, or summary.
Where a person is prosecuted on indictment and convicted, the court shall impose a minimum of two years imprisonment if the total value of the subject matter of the offences exceeds one million dollars.
Before the meeting
6 things to bring
Bring what you have and say what is missing. A meeting with the papers in front of it settles in one sitting what two telephone calls will not.
Our approach
The same four steps on every matter, whether it is a refusal at the Federal Court or a ticket at the Provincial Offences court.
Book a consultationWe take the full history and read the documents before offering an opinion. Most bad advice comes from acting on half the facts.
You get a candid read on strength, timeline and cost, including when the honest answer is that you do not need to hire anyone.
We prepare the application, the defence or the appeal properly the first time, because fixing a weak record later is harder and dearer.
You hear from us at each stage, and you hear what a wait actually means rather than a date chosen to sound better.
Reported decisions
7 allowed of 22 reported since 2023
Public judgments of the Federal Court with Kapil Rathod as counsel of record, each checkable by citation on the court's own site. The rest were dismissed and are listed with these ones.
Super visa, parents and grandparents
2026 FC 99Docket IMM-23381-24
Application allowedWork permit, Temporary Foreign Worker Program
2026 FC 105Docket IMM-18690-24
Application allowedTemporary resident visa
2026 FC 805Docket IMM-20802-24
Application allowedPermanent residence, Express Entry
2025 FC 275Docket IMM-1797-24
Application allowedWork permit, job offer
2024 FC 1928Docket IMM-6445-23
Application allowedStudy permit
2024 FC 1487Docket IMM-3700-23
Application allowedTemporary resident visa
2024 FC 1453Docket IMM-10337-23
Application allowedTheft and fraud charges in Ontario are sorted by the $5,000 line, and fraud carries the higher maximum above it along with a two year minimum past a million.
Colour of right and intent are the real defences, and for a non-citizen the section charged matters as much as the sentence.
Common questions
8 answered here
Written to be read once and acted on rather than to be rung about. Each answer is complete where the law allows a complete answer.
Fraud is wider. Theft requires taking or converting something. Fraud requires deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means and a resulting deprivation, and the thing lost can be property, money, a valuable security or a service.
That last word matters. Obtaining a service by deception is fraud even though nothing was taken in the sense theft requires. So is causing somebody to part with money by misrepresentation, and so is conduct that puts an economic interest at risk rather than producing an actual loss.
Other fraudulent means is the phrase that gives the offence its reach. It is not limited to lies, and it covers dishonest conduct that a reasonable person would regard as dishonest even where nothing false was said.
Fraud also carries the higher maximum at the upper level, fourteen years against theft's ten, and it is the only one of the two carrying a mandatory minimum. Section 380(1.1) requires two years imprisonment on indictment where the total value of the offences exceeds one million dollars.
Colour of right, on the theft side, is the defence people have most often without knowing its name. Section 322(1) requires the taking to be fraudulent and without colour of right, so an honest belief in a legal right to the property is an answer even where the belief is mistaken. Disputes between business partners, former spouses and family members frequently turn on it.
Intent is the other. Theft requires an intent to deprive and fraud requires the fraudulent conduct to be deliberate. Mistake, disorganisation, and genuine confusion about entitlement are not the same as dishonesty, and the distinction is often the whole case in accounting and record-keeping matters.
Identification matters in retail and in card cases, and the quality of video is frequently worse than the charge implies. Continuity of exhibits, whether an item was concealed, and whether the accused was past the point of payment are all reviewable.
For lower value first offences with no record, resolutions short of a conviction exist and restitution usually features in them. Repaying the loss early, where the facts support it, changes what is available in a way that repaying it after conviction does not.
It creates a record for dishonesty, which is a different problem from a record for anything else. Employment in any position touching money, licensing in regulated professions, bonding and security clearances are all affected in ways that a conviction for a different kind of offence is not.
For anybody who is not a Canadian citizen, the maximum matters. Inadmissibility turns on the maximum term available for the offence and on the sentence imposed, so the difference between the under and over versions of these charges is a difference in status exposure, not only in sentence.
Fraud over $5,000 at fourteen years is well into the range where the consequences for a permanent resident are serious, and where the availability of an appeal against a removal order can itself be lost depending on the sentence imposed.
That is why value and section are worth contesting even where the underlying conduct is admitted, and why a resolution that moves a charge below the line is frequently worth more than a modest reduction in sentence above it.
The value, at $5,000. Theft of more than $5,000, or of a testamentary instrument, is indictable with a maximum of ten years or may proceed summarily. Theft of not more than $5,000 is indictable with a maximum of two years, or summary. The line changes the offence, not just the sentence.
At the upper level, yes. Fraud over $5,000 carries a maximum of fourteen years under section 380(1)(a), against ten years for theft over. Fraud is also the only one of the two with a mandatory minimum: two years on indictment where the total value exceeds one million dollars.
It can be. Theft requires the taking to be fraudulent and without colour of right, so an honest belief in a legal right to the property answers the charge even if the belief was mistaken. This comes up constantly in disputes between partners, family members and former spouses.
Often, and the timing matters. Restitution before resolution features in many outcomes that avoid a conviction on lower value first offences, and it carries far more weight then than it does after a finding of guilt. Whether it is appropriate depends on the facts and should be discussed before anything is paid.
Through the maximum sentence available and the sentence imposed. That is why the $5,000 line matters beyond the criminal court, and why moving a charge from the over version to the under version can be worth more to a non-citizen than a reduction in the sentence itself.
Bring the disclosure and the alleged value with how it was calculated. Theft and fraud charges in Ontario often turn on that number.
