Theft Charges in Alberta: What You're Actually Facing

A theft charge under section 322 of the Criminal Code is the most commonly laid property offence in Alberta. The conduct it covers ranges from a single misjudged moment in a retail store to organized commercial-scale dishonest taking. The sentencing exposure runs from absolute discharge at the lowest end to a 10-year maximum on indictment for theft over $5,000 — and 14 years for motor vehicle theft involving violence or a criminal organization. A first-offence shoplifting file and an employee-theft-with-breach-of-trust file are both "theft" under the same provision, but the defence work, the resolution path, and the sentencing exposure look nothing alike.

This page explains the elements of theft under s. 322, the value-based punishment structure under s. 334, the specialized theft offences in the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft under s. 333.1, theft of telecommunication service under s. 326, theft by person required to account under s. 330, criminal breach of trust under s. 336), the defences that operate in these files — particularly the often-overlooked "colour of right" defence — and the sentencing and collateral consequences a conviction produces. KJR Law represents people facing theft charges across Calgary and Southern Alberta. Robbery — theft accompanied by violence, threats, or a weapon — is a distinct offence under s. 343 and is addressed on our robbery defence page.

Do Not Give a Statement Before You Speak with a Lawyer

Theft charges very often turn on what the accused says — to a loss-prevention officer, to police at the scene, to investigators at the detachment. "I forgot," "I meant to pay," "I didn't realize" can all sound exculpatory and all routinely become the foundation of the Crown's case on intent. You are not obliged to give the police a statement. Once a person is arrested or detained, s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the right to choose whether to speak to the authorities (R v Hebert, [1990] 2 SCR 151), and s. 10(b) gives the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be told of that right. That includes detention by a store security officer exercising powers under s. 494 of the Criminal Code. Call a lawyer first. Statements made before that call frequently shape the file for the duration.

The Section 322 Definition

Section 322(1) defines theft. A person commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent:

• to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;
• to pledge it or deposit it as security;
• to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or
• to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted.

Two phrases do the heavy lifting in this definition: "fraudulently" and "without colour of right." Both are elements the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

• "Fraudulently" requires that the taking be dishonest. An honest taking — whether by mistake, by misunderstanding, or by genuine belief that the property had been paid for or was free for the taking — is not fraudulent. The mental state is at the heart of every contested theft file.
• "Without colour of right" is a complete defence where the accused had an honest belief in a state of facts or law that, if true, would have entitled the accused to the property. The belief need not be reasonable; it must be honestly held. Civil disputes reframed as criminal theft — disagreements over ownership, contract performance, debt, or entitlement — can fail at the colour-of-right element.

Penalties Under Section 334

Section 334 of the Criminal Code graduates theft penalties by the value of the property. The specialized theft offences carry their own penalties:

Charge	Section	Prosecution	Maximum
Theft over $5,000	s. 334(a)	Hybrid	10 years on indictment / summary conviction
Theft not exceeding $5,000	s. 334(b)	Hybrid	2 years on indictment / summary conviction
Motor vehicle theft	s. 333.1(1)	Hybrid	10 years on indictment / summary; six-month minimum on indictment for a third or subsequent offence (see below)
Motor vehicle theft — violence used, threatened or attempted	s. 333.1(3)	Indictable	14 years
Motor vehicle theft — criminal organization	s. 333.1(4)	Indictable	14 years
Theft of telecommunication service	s. 326	Hybrid	Punished as theft under s. 334: 10 years on indictment (value over $5,000) or 2 years (not over $5,000) / summary
Theft by person required to account	s. 330	Hybrid	Punished as theft under s. 334: 10 years on indictment (value over $5,000) or 2 years (not over $5,000) / summary
Criminal breach of trust	s. 336	Indictable	14 years

Because theft is a hybrid offence at both value bands, the Crown's election as between summary conviction and indictment is consequential: the available sentencing range, the procedural framework, and the appeal route all turn on it. The immigration exposure for non-citizens is a related but separate analysis — theft over $5,000 reaches the serious-criminality threshold under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act on its 10-year maximum regardless of how the Crown proceeds (addressed under Collateral Consequences, below). Advocacy on charge selection and Crown election is among the most consequential pieces of early work on a theft file.

Motor vehicle theft. Theft of a motor vehicle is charged under its own provision, s. 333.1, rather than by value under s. 334. The base offence in s. 333.1(1) is hybrid. Two aggravated forms, added in 2024 (S.C. 2024, c. 17), are straight indictable with a 14-year maximum: theft of a motor vehicle in which violence against a person is used, threatened or attempted (s. 333.1(3)), and theft of a motor vehicle for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization (s. 333.1(4)).

On indictment, s. 333.1(1)(a) sets a minimum punishment of six months' imprisonment for a third or subsequent offence. Earlier convictions count whether they were prosecuted by indictment or summarily (s. 333.1(2)). At any sentencing on or after July 18, 2026 — whatever the date of the offence — s. 718.4 requires the court to impose a shorter term where the six-month minimum would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for that offender, with its reasons recorded. The shorter term is itself a minimum term of imprisonment (s. 718.4(5)), so it does not make a conditional sentence or a discharge available.

The 2026 amendments (S.C. 2026, c. 11) add further rules for motor vehicle theft. Each has its own date rule:

• Consecutive sentences — s. 333.11 (offences committed on or after July 15, 2026). A sentence for an offence under s. 333.1(3) or (4) must be served consecutively to any sentence for break and enter under s. 348 arising out of the same event or series of events. A sentence for a second or subsequent offence under s. 333.1(3) or (4) must be served consecutively to any other sentence arising out of the same event or series of events. For earlier offences, the general rules on concurrent and consecutive sentences continue to apply.
• Denunciation and deterrence — ss. 718.05 and 718.07. On a second or subsequent offence under s. 333.1(3), the court must give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence (s. 718.05). The same direction applies to any offence committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization, which includes s. 333.1(4) (s. 718.07). Parliament has directed that these provisions apply to matters ongoing on July 15, 2026; whether they can apply to an offence committed before that date may be contested.
• Bail — s. 515(6)(a)(xi) and s. 515(4.4). A person charged under s. 333.1(3) or (4) faces a reverse onus: the justice must order detention unless the accused shows cause why detention is not justified "by clearly demonstrating that their proposed release plan addresses the risks posed by the accused" as they relate to the grounds for detention. On any release for an offence under s. 333.1(1), (3) or (4), the justice must also consider conditions requiring the accused to stay away from specified places or areas, not to possess instruments suitable for breaking into any place or motor vehicle, or to remain at their residence at specified times. These bail changes apply to all matters ongoing on July 15, 2026, whatever the offence date.

Shoplifting and Retail Theft

The most frequently laid theft charge in Calgary is theft under $5,000 in a retail context. The investigation typically follows a recurring pattern:

• A loss-prevention officer observes conduct in-store consistent with concealment of merchandise — either directly or through CCTV.
• The accused is detained at or beyond the point of sale under the citizen's-arrest power in s. 494(2) of the Criminal Code.
• The accused is taken to a back-of-store office, where personal information is recorded and police are called.
• Calgary Police Service attends, accepts the file from loss prevention, and either releases the accused with an appearance notice or on an undertaking to appear (s. 498(1)) or holds them for a bail hearing.
• The store frequently follows up with a separate civil demand for the value of the goods and associated costs.

Several issues recur in these files. The lawfulness of the detention by loss prevention under s. 494(2) is reviewable — the citizen's-arrest power is bounded by what the officer "finds" the person committing, and the manner of the detention engages s. 9 of the Charter. The reliability of CCTV identifications, the accuracy of the inventory of allegedly stolen items, and the question whether intent to deprive can actually be proved at the moment the accused crossed the point of sale all bear on the strength of the Crown's case. Diversion through Alberta's Alternative Measures Program is available in appropriate first-offender retail-theft files and resolves the charge without a conviction (see Sentencing and Resolution Options, below).

Theft for resale or refund. Since July 15, 2026, s. 334.1(1) of the Criminal Code requires the sentencing court to treat as an aggravating circumstance the fact that a theft was committed with intent to sell or barter the stolen property or to fraudulently return it to a retail merchant. The same rule applies to robbery (s. 343), break and enter (s. 348), the offences in s. 351, and possession of property obtained by crime (s. 354). Parliament has directed that s. 334.1 applies to matters ongoing on July 15, 2026; whether it can apply to an offence committed before that date may be contested. Where the Crown alleges an intent to resell or to return goods for a refund, the evidence of that intent is a live issue on sentence.

Employee Theft and Breach of Trust

Theft by an employee from an employer engages a different statutory and sentencing framework. Where the employee was in a position of trust — handling cash, processing transactions, managing inventory, or with access to organizational property by reason of employment — the Crown frequently lays one or more of the following charges in addition to (or instead of) a simple theft count:

• Theft by a person required to account — s. 330. Captures the fraudulent failure to account for or pay over money or property received on terms that require accounting. It is a form of theft, punished under s. 334 — up to 10 years on indictment where the value exceeds $5,000.
• Criminal breach of trust — s. 336. Captures the fraudulent conversion, by a trustee and in contravention of the trust, of property held in trust. Straight indictable; maximum 14 years.
• Fraud — s. 380. Captures fraudulent conduct involving deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means. Maximum 14 years where the amount exceeds $5,000.

Position of trust is a statutory aggravating factor on sentence under s. 718.2(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code. Sentences in significant employee-theft files involving substantial sums or genuine breach of fiduciary obligation routinely include custodial dispositions, particularly where restitution is partial or non-existent.

The Defences That Actually Work in Theft Files

Theft files reward careful work on intent, on identification, and on the Charter status of the investigation. The arguments that recur:

Colour of right. The most underused defence in theft files. Where the accused honestly believed — even mistakenly — that the property was theirs to take, the Crown cannot prove the offence. Civil disputes over ownership, contract performance, debt, or shared property can support a colour-of-right defence. The honest belief need not be reasonable. It must be honestly held.

Lack of fraudulent intent — honest mistake. The "fraudulently" element requires dishonesty. Genuinely forgetting an item in a cart, in a basket, or under another item; placing an item in a bag with intent to pay and forgetting; or other genuinely innocent conduct does not constitute fraudulent taking. The retailer's frustration is not the criminal law's measure.

Mistaken identity. Many theft files rest substantially or entirely on surveillance footage. The quality of the footage, the clarity of the identification, the absence of other identifying evidence, and the reliability of any eyewitness account are all open to challenge. Where the Crown's case is "this person, on this video, on this date," the defence work begins with the integrity of that identification.

Civil dispute, not criminal theft. Disagreements between business partners, ex-spouses, landlords and tenants, and contracting parties are frequently characterized as theft by one side and as legitimate ownership disputes by the other. Where the conduct is in substance a civil dispute over property rights, the criminal law is the wrong forum and the colour-of-right defence is squarely engaged.

Charter section 9 — unlawful detention. Loss-prevention officers exercise the s. 494 citizen's-arrest power. That power is bounded — by the requirement that the officer "find" the person committing the offence, by the reasonableness of force used, and by the duty to deliver the person to police forthwith. Where the manner of the detention exceeded the lawful basis, s. 9 of the Charter is engaged and the evidence flowing from the detention is reviewable.

Charter section 8 — unlawful search. Searches incident to detention — of a bag, a vehicle, a person — engage s. 8. Where the search exceeded the lawful basis, the seized property and any derivative evidence are subject to exclusion under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Charter section 10 — right to counsel. Statements taken at the store, in the back office, or at the police station before counsel was offered are reviewable under R v Grant, 2009 SCC 32, the Supreme Court's leading authority on detention and the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2). Where the right to counsel was not properly implemented, statements and their fruits are subject to exclusion.

Sentencing and Resolution Options

Sentencing in theft files spans the full range:

• Alternative measures (Part XXII.2). The former s. 717 was repealed on July 18, 2026. Alternative measures are now governed by Part XXII.2 of the Criminal Code (ss. 715.44 and following), which applies to matters ongoing on that date; a measure already under way is deemed a Part XXII.2 measure (S.C. 2026, c. 19, s. 111). Before laying a charge, police must consider taking no further action, issuing a warning, or — with the person's consent — making a referral, including, where authorized, to an alternative measure (s. 715.47). Before commencing or continuing a prosecution, the prosecutor must consider a warning or a referral (s. 715.48). Both duties apply where appropriate and where public safety is not put at risk, and a failure to consider them does not invalidate the charge or the proceedings. Alternative measures require an authorized program, the person's full and free consent after being advised of the right to counsel, acceptance of responsibility for the act or omission, and sufficient evidence to proceed (s. 715.49). They cannot be used where the person denies involvement in the offence or wants the charge dealt with by the court (s. 715.5), so the choice between diversion and a defence on intent or identity is one to make with advice. An admission made as a condition of the measure is not admissible against the person (s. 715.51). In Alberta, these files run through the provincial Alternative Measures Program, available in appropriate first-offender, low-value cases. Completing the measure resolves the charge without a conviction; if a charge proceeds anyway, the court must dismiss it where it finds total compliance (s. 715.52(1)).
• Absolute or conditional discharge. Available where the accused is found guilty but the court is satisfied that it is in the accused's best interest and not contrary to the public interest. A conditional discharge involves a period of probation; absolute discharge does not. A discharge is not available where a minimum punishment applies or where the offence carries a maximum of 14 years or life (s. 730(1)) — which excludes motor vehicle theft under s. 333.1(3) or (4), criminal breach of trust, and fraud over $5,000.
• Suspended sentence and probation. A finding of guilt and a suspended sentence with a period of probation, typically including conditions related to community service, restitution, and counselling.
• Fine. Stand-alone or in combination with probation.
• Conditional sentence order (CSO). Bill C-5 (S.C. 2022, c. 15) repealed, among others, the former bars on theft over $5,000 and motor vehicle theft prosecuted by indictment (former s. 742.1(f)(vii)–(viii)) and the former bar on offences prosecuted by indictment with a maximum of 14 years or life (former s. 742.1(c)), which reached criminal breach of trust and fraud over $5,000. The current s. 742.1 framework applies on a case-specific basis: the sentence must be imprisonment of less than two years, and serving it in the community must not endanger the community. A CSO is barred where a minimum term of imprisonment applies (s. 742.1(b)) — on this page, a third or subsequent motor vehicle theft prosecuted by indictment — and that remains so where the court imposes a shorter term under s. 718.4, because the shorter term is itself a minimum (s. 718.4(5)). A CSO is also barred for a criminal organization offence prosecuted by indictment with a maximum of 10 years or more (s. 742.1(d)), which captures motor vehicle theft under s. 333.1(4).
• Custodial sentence. Available across the range — from days for repeat low-value retail theft, through months for moderate-value or repeat offending, through years for high-value, position-of-trust, or organized theft. The maximums in the table above set the upper bound.

Statutory aggravating factors. Several aggravating circumstances are codified for theft. Abuse of a position of trust is aggravating under s. 718.2(a)(iii) (see Employee Theft, above). Since July 15, 2026, s. 334.1(1) makes theft for resale, barter or fraudulent return to a retail merchant aggravating (see Shoplifting, above). Section 334.1(2) makes it aggravating that a theft interfered with access to or the functioning of essential infrastructure, or caused it to be unsafe or unfit for use — facilities and systems such as transportation, communications, water, and energy and utilities infrastructure, as defined in s. 52.1(2). Parliament has directed that both subsections apply to matters ongoing on July 15, 2026; whether they can apply to an offence committed before that date may be contested.

Restitution. Section 738 of the Criminal Code allows for restitution to a victim for property loss. Restitution orders are routinely sought by the Crown in theft files. Voluntary pre-sentence restitution is a recognized mitigating factor and is materially helpful in resolution discussions.

Collateral Consequences

A theft conviction reaches past the sentence the court imposes. Two distinct families of consequence follow, and they operate differently.

Court-imposed ancillary orders. On a finding of guilt, the sentencing court may make orders that travel alongside the sentence:

• Restitution — s. 738. An order to compensate the victim for property loss, routinely sought by the Crown. Voluntary pre-sentence restitution is also a recognized mitigating factor (see Sentencing, above).
• Victim surcharge — s. 737. Payable on a conviction or discharge for each offence, unless the court orders a reduced amount or none for undue hardship or disproportionality (s. 737(1), (2.1)).
• Forfeiture — where the property or its proceeds are subject to a forfeiture or proceeds-of-crime order.

Downstream consequences. Separate from any order the court makes, the fact of a conviction can carry consequences the criminal court does not impose and cannot control:

• Immigration jeopardy (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act). For non-citizens, the IRPA's serious-criminality threshold (s. 36(1)(a)) is reached two ways: conviction of an offence punishable by a maximum of at least 10 years, or a term of imprisonment of more than six months actually imposed. Theft over $5,000 meets the first branch on its 10-year maximum — and because s. 36(3) deems a hybrid offence indictable however the Crown elects, that exposure does not depend on the Crown proceeding by indictment. Motor vehicle theft (10 years under s. 333.1(1); 14 years under s. 333.1(3) and (4)) and criminal breach of trust (14 years) also meet the first branch, whatever the value involved. Theft under $5,000 falls below the 10-year branch, but a custodial sentence of more than six months can still trigger serious criminality. The form of sentence matters here: in Tran v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2017 SCC 50, the Supreme Court held that a conditional sentence is not a "term of imprisonment" for s. 36(1)(a), so a CSO — even one longer than six months — does not engage the sentence-based branch. Serious criminality can lead to inadmissibility, and where a custodial term of six months or more is imposed, the right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division is lost (s. 64).
• Employment. Theft convictions show on criminal record checks and are disqualifying for many positions requiring bonding, financial trust, or vulnerable-sector clearance.
• Professional and trade licensing. Regulated professions and trades may impose discipline up to and including loss of licensing.
• United States travel. Theft offences are typically classified as crimes involving moral turpitude by US Customs and Border Protection, which can render a person inadmissible. The usual path forward is a US entry waiver, which must be applied for and periodically renewed.
• Civil exposure. Retail-theft files frequently produce a separate civil demand or claim for the value of the goods and associated costs.

Companion Charges

Theft charges frequently travel with companion counts:

• Possession of property obtained by crime — s. 354. Where stolen property is found in the accused's possession.
• Break and enter — s. 348. Where the theft is alleged to have occurred during unlawful entry.
• Robbery — s. 343. Where violence, threats, or a weapon attended the theft.
• Fraud — s. 380. Frequently in employee-theft and identity-related files.
• Breach of trust — s. 336. In trust contexts.
• Conspiracy — s. 465. Where multiple participants are alleged.
• Failure to comply — s. 145. Where the conduct breached release conditions; a breach of a probation order is charged under s. 733.1 instead.

Where We Appear

We act on theft files in the Alberta Court of Justice, the Court of King's Bench of Alberta, and the Court of Appeal of Alberta. From our Calgary office we travel to court in Airdrie, Cochrane, Canmore, Okotoks, Diamond Valley, Didsbury, Strathmore, Drumheller, Hanna, Brooks, Medicine Hat, Lethbridge, Fort Macleod, Taber, Pincher Creek, and Cardston, and we appear in matters arising on the Tsuut'ina, Siksika, and Kainai (Blood Tribe) Nations.

If You Have Been Charged with Theft, Call a Lawyer Today.

Theft files reward early engagement — particularly where Alternative Measures Program eligibility is in play, where the colour-of-right defence is engaged, or where the Charter status of the detention or search is open to challenge. The initial consultation is at no charge, and we treat what you tell us as confidential in accordance with our professional obligations.