In Canadian criminal law, forging or destroying documents related to assistance requests with criminal intent is typically prosecuted under the general forgery provisions in the Criminal Code, mainly sections 366 and 368. Although the label comes from police/Statistics Canada reporting (UCR Code 1632) rather than a stand‑alone offence name in the Code, it covers situations where someone creates, alters, uses, or traffics in false documents to mislead authorities or others about an assistance request (for example, legal aid, mutual legal assistance, or other official benefit or cooperation requests). This is a hybrid offence, meaning the Crown can proceed by summary conviction or by indictment, with a maximum penalty of up to 10 years’ imprisonment. Understanding how forgery criminal intent Canada operates in this context is crucial for anyone facing such an allegation or working with sensitive legal or administrative documents.
The Legal Definition
Section 366(1): “Every one commits forgery who makes a false document, knowing it to be false, with intent
(a) that it should in any way be used or acted on as genuine, to the prejudice of any one whether within Canada or not; or
(b) that a person should be induced, by the belief that it is genuine, to do or to refrain from doing anything, whether within Canada or not.”Section 368(1): “Everyone commits an offence who, knowing or believing that a document is forged,
(a) uses, deals with or acts on it as if it were genuine;
(b) causes or attempts to cause any person to use, deal with or act on it as if it were genuine;
(c) transfers, sells or offers to sell it or makes it available, to any person, knowing that or being reckless as to whether an offence will be committed under paragraph (a) or (b); or
(d) possesses it with intent to commit an offence under any of paragraphs (a) to (c).”
In plain English, section 366 focuses on the creation or making of a false document. A person commits forgery when they produce, alter, or otherwise fabricate a document they know is false, and they do this with a specific intent: either to cause prejudice to someone, or to get someone to do (or not do) something by believing the document is real. Prejudice can include financial loss, legal disadvantage, or any other harmful consequence, and it can occur inside or outside Canada. For assistance requests, the “false document” might be an altered legal aid application, an international assistance request, or supporting documentation (such as income verification or affidavits) submitted to obtain benefits or cooperation improperly. The full statutory wording and interpretive context can be reviewed on the Department of Justice website at section 366.
Section 368 deals with what happens after a document has been forged. Even if a person did not create the false document themselves, they may commit an offence by using it, passing it along, trying to get someone else to act on it, or possessing it with the intention to use it in one of these ways. The critical element is that the accused knows or believes the document is forged, or is at least reckless in certain trafficking situations. In the context of assistance requests, this would include knowingly submitting forged documents to an assistance program, sharing forged supporting documents to help someone else obtain benefits, or holding forged documentation with the intention of tricking a court, government agency, or foreign authority into granting assistance. Section 368’s text and further details are set out in the official statute at section 368.
Penalties & Sentencing Framework
- Offence type: Hybrid (can be prosecuted by indictment or by summary conviction) for both sections 366 and 368.
- Maximum penalty (indictable): Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
- Summary conviction penalty: Subject to the general summary conviction limits under section 786 (up to 2 years less a day in jail, fines, or both, absent a specific higher maximum).
- Mandatory minimum penalty: None – there is no statutory minimum term of imprisonment.
Because forgery under sections 366 and 368 is a hybrid offence, the Crown chooses how to proceed. For less serious cases – for example, a relatively minor falsification of documents with limited harm – the Crown may elect to proceed by summary conviction. This keeps the maximum penalties lower and often results in simpler procedure and quicker resolution. For more serious cases – such as complex schemes, large financial impacts, or international abuse of assistance mechanisms – the Crown may proceed by indictment, triggering the possibility of up to 10 years’ imprisonment and more rigorous criminal procedure.
Sentencing in forgery cases is highly fact‑specific. Courts examine factors such as the nature of the forged document, the sophistication of the conduct, the scale of the fraud or prejudice, the vulnerability of the victim (for example, public benefit programs or foreign partner states relying on Canadian documents), and the offender’s prior record. Where assistance requests are concerned, courts will consider the broader impact on public trust in legal aid systems, international cooperation processes, or government programs. Even though there is no mandatory minimum, serious forgery involving assistance schemes can attract real jail time, especially if it formed part of a broader fraud.
On the other hand, first‑time offenders involved in isolated, less sophisticated incidents may sometimes receive conditional sentences, probation, or fines, particularly if they accept responsibility and make restitution where applicable. The hybrid nature of the offence gives prosecutors flexibility and allows judges to calibrate the sentence to reflect the gravity of the particular misconduct within the framework of forgery criminal intent Canada law.
Common Defenses
-
Good faith exception (section 366(5))
The Criminal Code expressly creates a narrow but important exception: no forgery offence is committed where a false document is made “in good faith” at the request of a police force, the Canadian Forces, or a federal or provincial government department or agency. This can apply in controlled operations, undercover investigations, or training scenarios where officers or officials ask someone to create or alter a document for legitimate law enforcement or governmental purposes. In the context of assistance requests, this might cover situations where investigators create a mock or altered assistance request to test internal controls or uncover fraud. To rely on this defence, the accused must show that the document was made pursuant to such an official request and that their participation was genuinely in good faith, not for personal gain or to mislead beyond the authorized operation.
-
Lack of mens rea (no knowledge or intent)
Both sections 366 and 368 require a mental element (mens rea). Under section 366, the person must know that the document is false and must intend either to cause prejudice or to induce someone to act or refrain from acting based on the false document. Under section 368, the person must know or believe the document is forged, or be reckless as to its forged nature in certain trafficking situations. A common defence, therefore, is that the accused did not know the document was false, or did not intend to deceive, prejudice, or mislead anyone. For example, someone filling out an assistance request might rely on information supplied by another person and genuinely believe it to be accurate. If they inadvertently included incorrect data or attached a document they did not realize was altered, they may lack the mens rea necessary for conviction. The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the required knowledge and intent for forgery criminal intent Canada standards to be met.
-
Lawful excuse or authorized alteration
Another defence arises where the alteration or use of a document is supported by a lawful excuse or valid authorization, and is not intended to be fraudulent. In some administrative or legal processes, staff or authorized agents may correct, annotate, or re‑issue documents relating to assistance requests. If these changes are done openly and with authority – for instance, a legal aid officer adjusting figures after receiving updated information – this is not forgery. A defence may succeed where the accused can show that the document was modified or used under a genuine belief that they had authority to do so, that they were following established procedures, and that there was no intent to deceive or cause prejudice. The line between lawful correction and criminal falsification depends on intent and the scope of the authority granted by the relevant institution or legislation.
Real-World Example
Consider an individual who applies for government‑funded legal assistance and, to strengthen the application, deliberately alters a financial statement to understate their income. They scan the original document, edit the numbers to make their income appear much lower, and upload this altered statement as part of the assistance request. They know the document has been changed and they intend for the legal aid authority to act on it as if it were genuine, so that they will receive benefits they would not otherwise qualify for.
In this scenario, the person has likely committed forgery under section 366 by making a “false document” (the altered financial statement) with intent that it be acted on as genuine to the prejudice of the legal aid program and the public purse. When they submit the application, they are also using a document they know to be forged, which fits within section 368(1)(a). Police and prosecutors would evaluate evidence such as the original unaltered document, digital editing records, email trails, and admissions to determine knowledge and intent. The court would assess the value of the improper benefit sought, the planning involved, and any prior record when deciding on sentence.
Record Suspensions (Pardons)
Because forgery under sections 366 and 368 is a hybrid offence, record suspension (pardon) eligibility is governed by the general Parole Board of Canada rules rather than any offence‑specific bar. Eligibility typically begins only after the offender has fully completed all parts of their sentence, including custody, probation, and payment of fines or restitution. The waiting period then depends on whether the Crown proceeded by summary conviction or by indictment, and on the overall criminal record. While the exact waiting periods are set by the Criminal Records Act and may be amended from time to time, hybrid offences like this generally allow for a record suspension application after a fixed number of crime‑free years post‑sentence completion. The fact that this conduct is grouped under UCR Code 1632 for statistical purposes does not change the record suspension framework. Individuals considering a record suspension for a forgery conviction involving assistance requests should consult up‑to‑date Parole Board guidance or legal counsel to determine the applicable waiting period and documentary requirements.
Related Violations
- Fraud
- Uttering a Forged Document
- Possession of Property Obtained by Crime