Stay informed
Unpublished Opinions
Former Walmart worker who stole over $7K worth of stuff given house arrest partially due to 'risk of deportation'
A woman who came to Canada from India on a student visa almost 10 years ago and who pleaded guilty to stealing more than $7,000 from her employer has been given a sentence of house arrest after the judge took into account the “collateral immigration consequences” if she were to be given prison time.
The case was decided this year by the Alberta Court of Justice under Justice James J. Ogle.
The ruling notes that the woman, age 26, pleaded guilty to one count of stealing “multiple products of a value exceeding $5,000, the property of Walmart, contrary to section 334(A) of the criminal Code of Canada,” between January and March of 2024.
“The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years imprisonment,” court records state. “There is no minimum sentence.”
According to an agreed statement of facts, the woman worked at Walmart as a customer service clerk. On at least 14 occasions over a five-week period, she stole goods from Walmart’s Cochrane, Alberta, location, either by herself or in concert with others, including her boyfriend.
The relationship ended more than a year ago. “None of the other participants in these thefts has been charged, and none of these others were employees of Walmart,” court records state.
The woman’s primary method of theft was to ring in goods not with the barcode of the item in question but with the one used for individual photo purchases, which was 32 cents.
“Now armed with a sales receipt, she or her accomplices would then exit the store without paying the correct price for each of the items taken,” the statement notes.
The woman has lived in Canada since she arrived on a student visa at the age of 17, though she has taken several trips back to India over the years to see family. She obtained permanent residency status in Canada in 2024.
“She has worked in the past in Canada in several different retail store positions,” court records state. Since being fired by Walmart, she has worked as security in a warehouse for about a year. “She does not like her current job,” the record adds.
Under aggravating factors, the justice noted that the method of theft was relatively sophisticated and required the woman’s knowledge of Walmart’s practices to lessen the chances of discovery.
He also noted: “This was not a single incident of theft but rather numerous thefts over several weeks, continuing up to the day she ceased to be an employee of Walmart.”
He added: “The total value of the goods taken is just over $7,000. None of the merchandise has been recovered.”
Court records also note: “The defence submits there are numerous mitigating and other factors — including a risk of deportation — that justify a Conditional Discharge.” A conditional discharge would avoid a permanent criminal conviction on the woman’s record.
The justice wrote that the Crown was not seeking imprisonment but rather “a 6-month Conditional Sentence of Imprisonment,” commonly known as house arrest, “noting a number of mitigating factors including her lack of a prior criminal record, timely guilty plea, expression of remorse, promise of full restitution, personal background, and potential immigration consequences.”
The justice referenced a 1976 Alberta case that noted: “Theft from an employer would, in most cases, involving as it does a breach of trust, not warrant a discharge.”
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act notes: “A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality for … having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, or of an offence under an Act of Parliament for which a term of imprisonment of more than six months has been imposed.”
The justice added: “The Crown opposes a Conditional Discharge in this matter, citing a number of cases, including, in particular, cases from the Alberta Court of Appeal that repeatedly state that a conditional discharge is not an appropriate sentence in cases of theft from employer such as the matter before me.”
The justice agreed with the Crown that a conditional discharge was not appropriate, but chose to sentence the woman “to a Conditional Sentence of Imprisonment (CSO) for a period of 5 and ½ months.”
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
Unpublished Newswire
Comments
Be the first to comment