Defend time theft allegations
Frequently Asked Questions
Time theft is an offence that occurs when an employee takes credit for work that they did not actually complete. This includes accepting pay for time that was not worked, or accepting compensation for tasks that were not actually completed. Time theft comes in a variety of forms. It might range from long breaks to “buddy-punching” (which means clocking in for a co-worker). Time theft might also occur in more subtle forms such as excessively using the internet for personal affairs during work hours contrary to the workplace policy.
As technology becomes more advanced, people need to be vigilant about electronic monitoring. Such electronic monitoring can be used to keep close track of employee productivity, and therefore might be used as evidence of time theft. Conversely, employers have to ensure that the policies regarding electronic monitoring are clearly conveyed to their employees to avoid any unnecessary legal issues.
What is Time Theft?
Time theft encompasses various behaviours where an employee deliberately misrepresents their work hours or productivity, in order to gain extra compensation. Time theft includes cases such as clocking in earlier or out later than worked, falsifying work records to overstate the number of hours worked, and other acts where an employee is paid for time that was not actually spent on work tasks.
Time theft also occurs when an employee inaccurately reports their work hours, often to receive payment for unproductive time by deliberately misleading the employer. Time theft can entail not working at all, or perhaps being unproductive during work hours. Time theft can occur at all levels and not only at the junior level.
- CP24: Civil Sexual Assault Lawsuit at St. Michael’s in Toronto.
- Global News Morning Show: Sentencing Arguments in Assault case of Dafonte Miller.
- Breakfast Television: Role of Mental Health in Court Proceedings.
- Global News National: Bruce McArthur will not serve consecutive sentences.
- CBC Radio: Interview with Mayor John Tory and Jordan Donich on CBC Radio.
- CTV News National: Handgun ban supported by majority of Canadians: Nanos survey.
- Global News: How difficult is it to get a legal handgun in Canada.
- CP24: Sentencing Hearing for Chair Girl.
Can I Be Criminally Charged for Time Theft?
Yes, time theft can result in criminal charges under the general theft provisions of the Criminal Code. This includes “theft under,” which applies to theft of goods or services valued under $5,000, and “theft over,” for values of $5,000 and above. Although penalties can vary widely, theft under $5,000 is generally treated less severely than theft over $5,000.
It is important to note that theft from an employer is typically viewed more seriously, because it implies a breach of trust and authority. This breach of trust makes it more likely for employees convicted of workplace theft to face jail time. When determining the appropriate sentence in a case of time theft, the Court typically has to consider all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. Stealing from one’s employer is seen as highly aggravating given the trust the employer has placed in the employee. A mitigating factor might be the fact that it was a first-time offence, or that it was done unintentionally.
It is important to consult a lawyer if you are being investigated for time theft so that you can protect your rights and avoid self-incrimination when your company asks you questions.
Workplace Investigations for Time Theft
Employers can uncover time theft using several methods, including discrepancies in work output, reports from other employees, or through surveillance tools. These tools, often in the form of specialized software for remote monitoring, gained prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic. If time theft is detected, an employer might be entitled to conduct an internal investigation, and possibly refer the case to law enforcement if needed.
The situation can become complicated if an employee argues that they completed their assigned tasks promptly and therefore deserves the full allotted work time. If accused of time theft, it is highly important to consult with a lawyer to explore your legal options.
Moreover, it is important for employers to establish clear policies on the use of electronic monitoring systems. They must also transparently communicate to employees how these systems operate and how data collection will be handled. This will prevent any issues regarding claims about an intrusion onto employees’ privacy.
Punishments for Theft Depend on the Value of Property
What Are the Penalties for Time Theft?
The criminal penalties for time theft correspond with those applicable under theft laws, with potential exacerbation due to the violation of employer trust. People found guilty of this crime might face incarceration, fines, or both.
The punishment for theft offences are outlined in section 334 of the Criminal Code. Where an individual is convicted of theft over $5,000, they will face a maximum penalty of ten years in prison where the Crown proceeds by indictment. Where the Crown proceeds by summary conviction, the accused will face a maximum of two years less a day in jail and/or up to a $5,000 fine. Where an individual is convicted of theft under $5,000, they will face a maximum of two years in jail where the Crown proceeds by indictment, and a maximum of two years less a day in jail and/or up to a $5,000 fine where the Crown proceeds summarily.
Further, those found to have committed time theft are likely to be terminated from their position. Being terminated can have long-term repercussions on the accused’s career and prospective employment.
How to Defend Theft Under $5000
What if I am Accused of Time Theft as a Regulated Professional?
For regulated professionals, such as doctors, lawyers, or accountants, accusations of time theft can prompt additional investigations by their respective regulatory bodies. These organizations have the power to impose sanctions, suspend, or revoke professional licenses and can impose significant fines. The ramifications for regulated professionals are therefore especially severe, making it necessary to consult a lawyer skilled in criminal, employment, and regulatory law when facing allegations of time theft.
Overall, time theft is a serious accusation with potential criminal, professional, and personal repercussions, underscoring the necessity for professional legal guidance when such issues arise. Once it is established that the employee committed time theft intentionally, the repercussions can be quite serious. Some consequences can include termination or lawsuits over the amount of money the employer lost through the unproductive work.
Law Newbie is a free AI research assistant that can help you safely answer questions about criminal law.
Recent Cases
Retail, Wholesale Department Store Union v Yorkton Cooperative Association, 2017 SKCA 107
In this case, a person named D.O. was being accused of time theft for the company in which they were working for. This led to the employer terminating D.O. from her position. More namely, the employer had accused D.O. of falsifying time sheets. The time sheets allegedly over-represented the number of hours that D.O. had productively worked. D.O. took the matter to arbitration to challenge this termination, stating that it was wrongful and unjustified.
The Arbitration Board held that D.O. had closed work early on at least two occasions and altered her time sheets accordingly, to inaccurately reflect her work hours. There were a few more instances where she was alleged to have committed time theft, but these cases were not able to be definitively proven. Although she also lied during the investigation, the Board decided to suspend rather than terminate her employment.
Afterwards, the Union appealed this decision to the Court of Queen’s Bench. This Court ended up overturning the Arbitration Board’s decision to reinstate D.O.’s position. So, in the end, the Court affirmed D.O’s termination in recognition of the seriousness in which Canadian law views time theft. Subsequent efforts by the union to appeal this ruling were unsuccessful, resulting in D.O.’s definitive loss of her job.
International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 50 v Otis Canada, 2017 CanLII 53048
In this case, an employee was terminated after the company’s GPS monitoring system revealed discrepancies between the employee’s reported locations and the actual data from the tracker. The investigation confirmed that the employee had claimed approximately seven hours of paid work in a week during which he did not work.
While admitting to these discrepancies, the employee argued that there was insufficient work available during those hours. Despite the admission and the employee’s rationale, the employer decided to terminate his employment, citing a breach of trust and past experiences with dishonest employees who similarly misreported their work hours. This decision was aimed at preventing future instances of misconduct.
The Union contested the termination, arguing that it was excessively harsh given the employee’s long tenure, the sporadic availability of work, and previous, more lenient treatment of similar cases of time theft by other employees. Ultimately, the arbitrator deemed the termination excessively punitive. It was important to consider the context of the misconduct, including the employee’s forthright admission and expression of remorse. Consequently, the arbitrator opted for a suspension without pay instead of termination.
Sarens Canada Inc. v. General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362, 2017 CanLII 46446
The central issue in this case was the misrepresentation of work hours by an employee who reported leaving at 5:00 PM, despite actually clocking out at 4:30 PM. The Union defended the employee, implying that the misreporting could be attributed to a misunderstanding of the company’s policy on rounding up work hours. This helped to support the argument that the “time theft” was an honest mistake. The Arbitration Board, however, viewed the situation differently.
Given the minimal supervision at the workplace and the independence afforded to the employees, the employee’s actions were seen as a significant breach of trust. Despite the absence of malicious intent, the Board decided not to reinstate the employee because of how serious such misrepresentation of work hours is, especially in the trust-dependent environment in which the employee worked in.
Nonetheless, the Board did recognize that the intent was not overtly negative nor was it malicious. So, the Board awarded the employee five months of salary as compensation. This case shows how important it is to clearly communicate company’s policies and to clearly set out the employee’s responsibilities in unsupervised roles. This helps prevent misunderstandings and legal issues.