Many U.S.
“joyriding” cases are closer to temporary taking/unauthorized use than
true “auto theft.” In Canada, the closest match is often Criminal Code s.
335(1) (taking a motor vehicle without consent), which is a summary
conviction offence.
Source: Criminal
Code s. 335
The
immigration takeaway
For foreign
nationals (visitors, students, workers), criminal inadmissibility under IRPA
s. 36(2) is commonly triggered by a conviction for an offence punishable by
indictment (and hybrid offences are treated as indictable). Since s. 335 is a summary-only offence, an outcome that truly equates to s. 335 will often not trigger criminal inadmissibility under IRPA s. 36(2) on the “indictable offence” pathway.
Source: IRPA s.
36(2)(a) and hybrid deeming rule s. 36(3)(a)
Important
caution: This depends on
equivalency. If the facts/record support a Canadian equivalent closer to theft
of motor vehicle (s. 333.1) (hybrid, up to 10 years on indictment), then
inadmissibility risk can change substantially.
Source: Criminal
Code s. 333.1
1) Canada:
“Joyriding” vs “Auto Theft”
A) Canada’s
“joyriding” offence (summary-only)
Criminal
Code s. 335(1): taking a
motor vehicle without the owner’s consent (commonly used for temporary
taking/unauthorized use).
● Procedure: summary conviction offence (not hybrid)
B) Canada’s
auto theft offence (hybrid; higher risk)
Criminal
Code s. 333.1: theft of
motor vehicle.
● Procedure: hybrid; max 10 years on indictment
2) Equivalency chart (U.S. “joyriding” statutes → likely Canadian match)
State | Common
“joyriding/unauthorized use” charge | Often
closer to (Canada) | Why the
immigration outcome can differ |
California | Vehicle Code §
10851 (“take or drive”) | Often s.
335 if record supports temporary taking | VC 10851 is
broad; record may also support theft intent in some cases |
New York | Penal Law §
165.05 (unauthorized use) | Often s.
335 | Usually framed
as use without consent rather than theft |
Minnesota | Minn. Stat. §
609.52 (includes motor vehicle without consent clause) | Often s.
335 | Wording/facts
can shift the match toward theft in some cases |
U.S. statute
links:
Canadian
statute links:
3) When
“joyriding” can still create inadmissibility risk
Even if the
U.S. case is called “joyriding,” risk increases when the Canadian equivalent
shifts from s. 335 to an indictable or hybrid offence, such as:
● theft of motor vehicle (s. 333.1), or
● other property offences depending on the record
(e.g., possession of property obtained by crime).
Source:
s. 333.1
Call A&M
Canadian Immigration Law Corporation: (204) 442-2786
If your U.S. file is labelled
“joyriding,” we can review the documents to confirm whether it truly equates to Canada’s summary-only s. 335 (often lower inadmissibility risk) or a
higher-risk Canadian offence.
Disclaimer
(Educational Use Only)
This content is
for general educational information only and is not legal advice. Immigration
laws, regulations, policies, and officer practices can change. U.S. vehicle
offences vary by state and can change over time, and the equivalency
outcome depends on the exact statute, offence date, and court records.
Sources
(hyperlinks)
● Criminal
Code s. 335 (taking motor vehicle without consent)
● Criminal
Code s. 333.1 (theft of motor vehicle)
Frequently Asked Questions
Not automatically. But if your case truly equates to Canada’s summary-only s. 335, it will often not fit the “indictable offence” trigger used for foreign nationals under IRPA s. 36(2).
Because VC 10851 can cover a range of conduct (“take or drive”), so the Canadian match depends heavily on the court record and what was proven/admitted.
Source: CA VC 10851 https://california.public.law/codes/vehicle_code_section_10851
● charging document
● statute section + wording
● disposition/judgment
sentence terms and proof completion
These documents help confirm whether the
best Canadian match is s. 335 (summary-only) or something more serious.
