Canadian Criminal Law/Offences/Theft

Legislation
The Criminal Code defines theft as follows:

Generally
The Crown will typically prove the following:
 * 1) identity of accused
 * 2) date and time of incident
 * 3) jurisdiction (incl. region and province)
 * 4) property was owned by someone (use witness or documents under ss. 491.2 and 657.1)
 * 5) value of the  property
 * 6) continuity of the property
 * 7) file photo of property or actual property as exhibits (s. 491.2)
 * 8) accused took or converted property
 * 9) the owner did not give permission for the accused to take or convert it
 * 10) the items were not given to the accused in good faith (no colour of right)
 * 11) the accused intended to deprive the owner of the property

Shoplifting
In a case of shoplifting the Crown will typically prove, in addition to the general elements of proof, the following:
 * 1) That the accused did not pay for items or make attempt to pay.
 * 2) That the accused did not have money to pay for the items.
 * 3) Whether the accused had property in possession at time of arrest.

Interpretation
In a theft case the crown must prove a specific intent of the accused to deprive its owner of the property.

The offence of theft when in the context of shop-lifting is complete even before the accused leaves the store. By picking up the item with the requisite intent to steal is sufficient to make out the offence in its entirety.

Colour of Right
This is an honest belief on the part of the accused that they had a right to possess the property, despite that there was no true basis for the belief in fact or law. This does not include mere belief in a moral entitlement to the property

Subject Matter of Theft
The provision states that "anything" can be the subject of theft. This term was interpreted broadly as including both tangibles and intangibles. The subject of theft must be:
 * 1) be property of some sort
 * 2) property capable of being
 * 3) taken or
 * 4) converted
 * 5) taken or converted in a way that the owner is deprived of the property in some way.

Confidential information cannot be the subject of theft as the owner is not deprived of the subject.

Misc Issues of Proof

 * s. 491.2(1) -- photographic evidence
 * s. 657.1(1) -- Proof of ownership and value of property

Defences
Typical defences will include claims such as:
 * the accused paid for the property (colour of right)
 * the accused was given the property (colour of right)
 * the accused honestly but mistakenly believed the property was theirs (honest but mistaken belief)
 * the accused forgot they were in possession of it (honest but mistaken belief)

Other Forms of Theft
Sections 323 to 333 provide for more specific instances and exclusions from theft:
 * theft from oyster beds (s. 323)
 * theft by bailee of things under seizure (s. 324)
 * exception when agent is pledging goods (s. 325)
 * theft of telecommunications service (s. 326)
 * possession of device to obtain telecommunication facility or service (s. 327)
 * theft by or from person having special property or interest (s. 328)
 * theft by person required to account (s. 330)
 * theft by person holding power of attorney (s. 331)
 * misappropriation of money held under direction (s. 332)
 * exception for ore taken for exploration or scientific research (s. 333)

Case Digests

 * R v Parkes, 2012 SKQB 164 -- convicted; detailed review of the law
 * R. v. Butler, 2010 CanLII 42944 (NL P.C.) -- acquitted; argued honest mistake
 * R. v. Doering, 2011 ABPC 349 -- moving company refuses to give property to a store -- guilty of theft over $5000