What Is A Criminal Mischief Charge?

Criminal mischief is a term that covers various acts of intentional damage or interference with property. Under Canadian law, specifically Section 430 of the Criminal Code, criminal mischief is defined as an act that:
(a) destroys or damages property;

(b) renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective;

(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or

(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.

This broad definition means that actions ranging from graffiti to more serious forms of property damage fall under this category.

The key elements of criminal mischief are the willful nature of the act and the resultant damage or interference to another person’s property. There must be intent behind the action; this intent to cause damage or disruption is what transforms a simple accident into a criminal act.

Types of Criminal Mischief

Mischief to Property 

This is perhaps the most common form of criminal mischief. It involves damaging or destroying physical property. Acts such as vandalism, graffiti, breaking windows, or damaging vehicles all fall under this category. The law takes these acts seriously because they infringe upon the rights of property owners and can cause significant financial and emotional distress.

Mischief to Data 

Today, data is as valuable as physical property. Mischief to data involves interfering with or disrupting electronic data. This could include actions like hacking, introducing viruses, or any unauthorized access that corrupts or disrupts data. Given the increasing reliance on digital information, such acts can have far-reaching consequences.

Mischief Causing Danger to Life 

This type of mischief involves acts that go beyond property damage and pose a real threat to human life. Tampering with public utilities, such as cutting off electricity or gas lines, falls into this category. These actions can lead to serious injuries or fatalities, and as such, are treated with the utmost severity under the law.

Classified as an indictable offence, mischief causing danger to life is the most severe form of criminal mischief. When a person commits mischief that causes actual danger to life, they can potentially face a life sentence. This harsh penalty reflects both the potential for catastrophic outcomes and the high degree of recklessness involved.

In cases where the damaged property exceeds $5,000, it is also considered an indictable offence, with penalties reaching up to 10 years imprisonment. However, these offences can alternatively be prosecuted as summary conviction offences, which carry lighter penalties. This dual categorization allows proportionality in sentencing.

For property damage under $5,000, the penalties are less severe but still substantial. If prosecuted as indictable, it is an offence punishable by up to two years imprisonment. If handled as summary conviction, a lighter sentence may be given. This gradation in penalties highlights the importance of the damage’s value in determining the severity of the legal consequences.

At Jaswal & Krueger Criminal Defence Lawyers, our team is well-versed in handling such charges and helping our clients avoid criminal records. Viable defence strategies for criminal mischief charges include: 

Lack of Intent 

If the act was accidental and not willful, it does not meet the legal definition of criminal mischief. Demonstrating that there was no intent to cause damage can be a strong defence.

Mistaken Identity 

In cases where the act was committed by someone else, providing an alibi or showing that the evidence does not establish identity can lead to an acquittal.

Consent 

If the property owner had given permission for the act that resulted in damage, it might not be considered criminal mischief.

R. v. D.D. – September 2022

In September 2022, our client, referred to as D.D., faced two counts of public mischief due to her involvement in climate protests where she blocked traffic in acts of civil disobedience. The Crown sought a criminal record and a $2000 fine, aiming to make an example out of D.D. to deter future similar actions.

At sentencing, we presented a compelling case to the judge, emphasizing D.D.’s genuine concerns about climate change and her commendable service to the community through extensive volunteering. We argued that imposing a criminal record would have severe repercussions for her, including the potential loss of her employment and the inability to visit her father’s grave in the United States.

We highlighted the disproportionate impact a criminal record would have on D.D.’s life compared to the nature of her offence. The judge, considering our arguments and D.D.’s background, agreed with our position. Ultimately, the judge decided to discharge our client, allowing her to continue her advocacy and community service without the burden of a criminal record.

R. v. R.H. – September 2023

In September 2023, our client, R.H., faced charges of disorderly conduct, uttering threats, and mischief. The allegations stemmed from an incident where R.H. was captured on video swearing at random drivers and hitting their vehicles with his fist. This conduct resulted in significant legal repercussions, prompting an immediate need for a strong defence strategy.

At the heart of our defence, we argued that R.H.’s actions were precipitated by a severe mental health episode. When the police arrived at the scene, their approach to handling the situation was not only heavy-handed but also unlawful. The arrest escalated the incident, exacerbating our client’s mental health condition rather than de-escalating the situation as required.

During negotiations, we highlighted the mishandling by law enforcement and emphasized R.H.’s vulnerability due to his mental health issues. Our arguments convinced the Crown that a more compassionate approach was warranted. As a result, they agreed to a conditional discharge, acknowledging that a criminal record would be unduly punitive given the circumstances and could further hinder R.H.’s recovery and reintegration into society.