Theft, Shoplifting, and Fraud Lawyers

The criminal defence lawyers at Robichaud’s have extensive experience in defending theft, fraud, and other related property crime offences.

Proven results in successfully defending theft, and other property related offences.

Our criminal defence law firm has successfully defended individuals charged with everything from shoplifting to multi-million dollar frauds.

Call us today at (416) 9990-8389 and let our lawyers explain how we can help.

Otheft lawyer toronto shoplifting diversionne of the most common offences that come before the court and police is shoplifting and other forms of theft.  Much to the surprise of many, most people who are charged with theft have no prior involvement in the law and are often otherwise people of good character.
All too often people act our of impulse, poor judgment, or as a result of mental health.  If you are one of the many people in Ontario charged with shoplifting or theft, you do not need to feel alone or embarrassed.

The criminal defence lawyers at Robichaud’s are able to help and set your mind at ease and do everything within their power and abilities to ensure you do not end up with a criminal record or worse.

The consequences of a criminal theft conviction can be severe.

There are many effects of a theft charge that may not be immediately apparent to someone unfamiliar with the law.

For example, individuals may be banned from certain premises under the Trespass to Property Act, or issued letters of demand from lawyers requesting payment for civil losses.  Other consequences can include civil lawsuits, loss of employment, and even incarceration.

Before you act on any of these other issues, it is wise to contact an experienced lawyer to advise upon the best approach in addressing theft or fraud charges.

An experienced lawyer can assist you with the criminal charges of theft, as well as the other consequences that may come from being charged. In addition to valuable legal advice, a lawyer can also make best efforts to follow up with the charging police force to expunge criminal records and fingerprints if charges are withdrawn or a person is found not guilty of the offence.

There is no fraud or theft that is too big or small for our experienced lawyers to properly defend.   As you can see by our proven track record below, it is not just about experience, but proven experience. 

Call us today at (416) 999-8389 to discuss your case and how we can help. Our initial consultations are always at no cost or commitment.

Examples of our lawyers’ past experience in theft, fraud, and monetary crimes:

R. v. W.K. Superior Court of Justice (Brampton)

Charges: Possession of Stolen Property Over $5000.00; Possession of burglar tools | Allegations: Police officer notices a suspicious transport truck driving in an industrial area at night, followed by a SUV. Upon surveillance, the police officer views the transport truck park and the person inside exit the truck and enter the SUV. Police pull over the SUV and further investigation uncovers the transport truck to be stolen. Upon search of the SUV, various suspicious items found inside.

Result: Motion for non-suit granted: Not guilty on all charges.

R. v. A.N. Superior Court of Justice (Durham Region)

Charges: Home Invasion Robbery with a Firearm, etc. | Allegations that accused set up friend to be robbed for $12,000.00 with the assistance of co-accused and another individual that was never arrested. Police asserted that accused (AN) had exclusive knowledge of the whereabouts of the money, spoke to, met up with, and SMS texted the co-accused and other accomplice prior to the robbery. Upon arrival, AN entered the premises with other suspects and police alleged feigned being a victim of the robbery. Trial set for 3 weeks with significant motions surrounding the admissibility of phone records and statements.

Result: All charges withdrawn for client AN. (Co-accused, whom I did not represent pleads guilty and receives penitentiary sentence).

R. v. N.T. (Ontario Court of Justice)

Charges: Theft Under x2, Assault with Intent to Resist Arrest, Assault, etc.; | Allegations: While at home Depot, accused was alleged to have stolen expensive drill bits and other items. He attempts to flee from security officers in the process and assaults them in so doing. The trial ran for multiple days. Result: Charges stayed. A constitutional application was brought on the basis that home Depot and the police were negligent in destroying the video surveillance tapes that defence wanted to use as part of their defence in denying the allegations.

Result: Judge agreed and stayed the charges.

R. v. C.P (Toronto: North York, 1000 Finch Ave.)

Charges: Fraud Over $5000.00. Allegations: Employee alleged to have embezzled a significant amount of money from employer (over $50,000) through her signing authority.

Result: All charges withdrawn.

R. v. C.S & A.S. (Ontario Court of Justice)

Charges: Possession of Property Obtained by crime Over $5000.00 x 3; Possession of Property Obtained by crime Under $5000 x 3; Possession of Marijuana for the Purpose of Trafficking; Allegations: Two individuals alleged to have been running a massive operation by selling stolen items on EBay and similar forums. Upon search of the home, police allege to have found stolen vehicles, electronics, controlled substances, and other items of interest along with large amounts of money.

Result: C.S. pleads to one count of possession of property obtained by crime and one count of marijuana possession and receives 12 months probation. All charges against A.S. are withdrawn.

R. v. M.L. (Ontario Court of Justice) - Toronto

Charges: Break and Enter into a Dwelling, Possession of Property Obtained by crime. Allegations: Accused of being party a break and enter into a dwelling and then a subsequent escape in a motor vehicle.

Result: All charges withdrawn

R. v. L.A. (Ontario Court of Justice) - Newmarket

Charges: Possession of Stolen Vehicles (Possession of Property Over $5000.00). Allegations: Accused being party to a “chop shop” where vehicles where stolen and then taken to be refitted.

Result: All charges dismissed

R. v. M.M. (Ontario Court of Justice) - Toronto

Charges: Mischief Under x 11 | Allegations: Accused of causing damage to 11 cars on the way home from the bar with two co-accused. Co-accused both plead guilty. M.M. went to trial. Constitutional application brought forward.

Result: Charges withdrawn in the face of Constitutional Application

R. v. S.A. (Ontario Court of Justice) - Toronto

Charges: Possession of Property Obtained by crime / Use of Counterfeit Credit Card x 2 / Fraudulent use of Credit Card | Allegations: Accused with two others of being party to using a fraudulent credit card to purchase items from a retain store.

Result: Not guilty on all counts

R. v. J.R. (Ontario Court of Justice) - Toronto

Charges: Obstruct Police, Possession of Stolen Property Under $5000.00 | Allegations: Accused of being party to passing fraudulent cheques that were stolen from a break and enter into a business.

Result: Charges withdrawn

R. v. F.J. (Ontario Court of Justice) - Toronto

Charges: Theft Under, Possession of Stolen Property | Allegations: Accused of being an insider to stealing merchandise from a retain store where a smaller item would be purchased, and then a larger, more expensive item, would be picked up at the pick-up dock. | Result: Charges withdrawn after charitable donation made to Sick Kids Hospital.

R. v. D.A. (Ontario Court of Justice) - Barrie

Charges: Causing a Public Disturbance | Allegations: Accused of causing a disturbance in Barrie after attending a local drinking establishment

Result: Not guilty

R. v. S.F. (Ontario Court of Justice) - Brampton

Charges: Theft Under, Possession of Stolen Property. Allegations: Accused of a party to stealing clothing item in a retail store. Caught on camera.

Result: Not guilty

R. v. N.P. (Ontario Court of Justice) - Toronto

Charges: Theft Under, Assault With a Weapon, Weapons Dangerous | Allegations: Accused was alleged to have taken the victim’s bicycle with a co-accused. The co-accused got away but the accused was chased down by the victim. Before police arrive, the accused was alleged to have thrown a glass bottle at the victim’s head.

Result: Not Guilty on all counts as charges but guilty of simple assault.

R. v. C.L. (Ontario Court of Justice)

Charges: Uttering Forged document; Failure to Attend Court | Allegations: Accused of using a Health Card that was not hers.

Result: Absolute Discharge for Forged document; Failure to Attend withdrawn

R. v. D.P. (Ontario Court of Justice)

Charges: Theft Under (Breach of Trust – Employee/Employer Relationship) | Allegations: Accused of stealing merchandise from a retail store while working there

Result: Conditional Discharge

R. v. S.C. (Ontario Court of Justice)

Charges: Theft Over $5000.00. Allegations: Client is alleged to be the driver of a car that was followed by police and then determined to be stolen. Client is arrested a short distance away from stolen vehicle.

Result: Charges withdrawn at Preliminary Hearing

R. v. M.K. (Ontario Court of Justice) - Burlington

Charges: Robbery | Allegations: Accused, along with other participants, set up victim and take him out to a park where he beats him, robs him, takes his bank card and money, and leaves him without any clothes other than his underwear on. Victim attends stranger’s home for assistance, then hospital, then reports to police.

Result: Plea of guilt entered. Sentenced to house arrest (conditional sentence) for a period of one year.

R. v. N.P. (Ontario Court of Justice)

Charges: Theft Under, Assault With a Weapon, Weapons Dangerous | Allegations: Accused was alleged to have taken the victim’s bicycle with a co-accused. The co-accused got away but the accused was chased down by the victim. Before police arrive, the accused was alleged to have thrown a glass bottle at the victim’s head.

Result: Not Guilty on all counts as charges but guilty of simple assault.

DISCLAIMER: Every criminal case is unique and every case has it’s own challenges.  Past acquittals, withdrawals, or other favourable results our lawyers have achieved for our clients in theft, fraud, and shoplifting cases does not mean the same result can be obtained for present or future clients.  We look at each case with it’s own unique characteristics and fashion our approach on the individual, not the crime itself.

Recent articles on legal news and issues.

2019Monday, February 4,

R v Calnen, 2019 SCC 6

Heather's Legal Summaries: R v Calnen, 2019 SCC 6 Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in R v Calnen, 2019 SCC 6. With three separate judgments, there was little consensus [...]