When Canadian
officers assess a U.S. theft conviction, they don’t rely on labels like “petty
theft” or “grand larceny.” They compare the essential elements of the
U.S. offence to the closest Canadian Criminal Code theft offence, then
(if needed) apply IRPA s. 36.
Source: Criminal
Code s. 322 (theft definition)
Source: IRPA s.
36
1) The
Canadian baseline: what Canada means by “theft”
Canada’s core
theft definition requires taking or converting property “fraudulently and
without colour of right” with intent to deprive (temporarily or
absolutely).
Source: Criminal
Code s. 322
2) Canada
punishment made clear: over $5,000 vs $5,000 or less (both are hybrid)
A key point for
immigration analysis: theft over $5,000 and theft $5,000 or less are both
hybrid offences in Canada. That means the Crown can proceed by
indictment or by summary conviction.
Source: Criminal Code s. 334
Canada
punishment chart (updated)
Canadian
theft category | If
prosecuted by indictment | If
prosecuted by summary conviction |
Theft over
$5,000 (s. 334(a)) | Max 10
years | “Punishable on summary conviction” → general summary maximum
applies |
Theft
$5,000 or less (s. 334(b)) | Max 2 years | “Punishable on summary conviction” → general summary maximum
applies |
Sources:
● General summary maximum (Criminal
Code s. 787(1)): up to 2 years less a day and/or fine up to $5,000,
unless another law provides otherwise.
Why this
matters for U.S. equivalency: even if a U.S. case is described as “misdemeanor theft,” the Canadian
equivalent may still be treated as indictable for immigration purposes because hybrid offences are deemed indictable under IRPA.
Source: IRPA s.
36(3)(a)
3)
Comparison chart: essential elements (Canada vs CA/NY/MN)
Jurisdiction | Core theft
wording (high-level) | Practical
equivalency notes |
Canada (Criminal Code s. 322) | “fraudulently
and without colour of right” takes or converts, with intent to deprive | “Without
colour of right” is a common equivalency focus |
California (Penal Code s. 484) | “feloniously
steal, take, carry…” and includes embezzlement/false pretenses under the
“theft” umbrella | Broad
umbrella—equivalency often depends on which theory applies (larceny vs
embezzlement vs false pretenses) |
New York (Penal Law s. 155.05) | with intent to
deprive/appropriate, “wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds” property | Often closer
in structure, but the scope still matters |
Minnesota (Stat. s. 609.52) | intentionally,
without claim of right, takes/uses/transfers/retains without consent + intent
to deprive permanently | “Without claim
of right” can align well with Canada’s “without colour of right” concept |
Sources:
● California PC 484 https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-pen/part-1/title-13/chapter-5/section-484/
● New York PL 155.05 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/155.05
● Minnesota 609.52 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.52
4) “Petty vs
grand” thresholds (high-level comparison)
These
thresholds are useful context, but Canadian equivalency starts with elements and then looks at Canadian value bands (>
$5,000 vs ≤ $5,000).
Jurisdiction | Common
value threshold concept | Reference |
Canada | > $5,000 vs $5,000 or less (punishment bands; still hybrid either way) | Criminal Code
s. 334 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-334.html |
California | Grand theft
generally when value exceeds $950 | Penal Code s.
487 https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-pen/part-1/title-13/chapter-5/section-487/ |
New York | “Petit
larceny” is baseline; higher degrees apply by value/type | Penal Law s.
155.25 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/155.25 |
Minnesota | Multiple
value-based levels within the theft statute | Minn. Stat.
609.52 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.52 |
Call A&M
Canadian Immigration Law Corporation: (204) 442-2786
If your theft record is from California,
New York, or Minnesota, a document-based equivalency review can confirm the
closest Canadian match under Criminal Code s. 322/334 and how it may be
treated under IRPA s. 36.
Disclaimer
(Educational Use Only)
This content is
for general educational information only and is not legal advice. Canadian
immigration laws and officer practices can change. U.S. theft laws vary by
state and change over time, and outcomes depend on the exact statute,
offence date, and court records.
Sources
(hyperlinks)
● Canada — Theft
definition (Criminal Code s. 322)
● Canada — Theft
punishment bands (Criminal Code s. 334)
● Canada — General
summary maximum (Criminal Code s. 787)
● Canada — IRPA s.
36 (incl. hybrid deeming rule s. 36(3)(a))
● California — Theft
definition (Penal Code s. 484)
● California — Grand
theft threshold (Penal Code s. 487)
● New York — Larceny defined
(Penal Law s. 155.05)
● New York — Petit larceny
(Penal Law s. 155.25)
● Minnesota — Theft statute (Minn.
Stat. 609.52)
Frequently Asked Questions
Often yes, but California “theft” is a broad
umbrella under PC 484, so equivalency can depend on which theory (larceny,
embezzlement, false pretenses) the record supports.
Source: California PC 484 https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-pen/part-1/title-13/chapter-5/section-484/
Not directly. Canada uses $5,000 as its main punishment split, and the Crown can still choose indictment or summary because theft is hybrid.
Source: Criminal Code s. 334 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-334.htmlBecause many Canadian theft
offences are hybrid, and IRPA treats hybrid offences as indictable for
inadmissibility analysis.
Source: IRPA s. 36(3)(a) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/section-36.html
