Fraud in Relation to Fares, etc. (s. 393) Laws in Canada

What is fraud in relation to fares?

Fraud in relation to fares is an offence which is covered under s. 393 of the Criminal Code (the Code).

Fraudulently collecting a fare or fraudulently avoiding paying a fare are offences in Canada. Fraud in relation to fares is is a hybrid offence, where depending on the circumstances of your case, the Crown can elect to proceed either summarily or by indictment.

Fraud in relation to fares, under s. 393 of the Code, carries with it a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment if you are found guilty of the offence.

Each of the 393 offences does not have mandatory minimum sentences.

Examples

Fraud in relation to fares under s. 393(1) is defined in the Code as the following: “Every person whose duty it is to collect a fare, toll, ticket or admission and who intentionally does any of the following is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.”

Some common examples of Fraud in relation to fares under s.393(1) may include the following:

• Fails to collect a fare,
• Collects less than the proper amount of the fare, or
• Accepts any valuable consideration for failing to collect a fare or for collecting less than the proper amount of the fare.

Some examples of Fraud in relation to fares may include:

• Failing to collect the fare associated with riding in a taxi.
• Failing to collect the proper amount associated with riding in a taxi.
• Agreeing to accept other methods of payment in exchange for fare payment where a fare, toll, ticket, or admission is required.

Fraud in relation to fares under s. 393(2) states that “Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who gives or offers to a person whose duty it is to collect a fare, toll, ticket or admission fee any valuable consideration.”

Some examples of Fraud in relation to fares under s. 393(2) may include:

• Offering a representative that has a duty to take a toll, fare, ticket, or admission fee, a payment that is not currency in exchange for a fare, toll, ticket, or admission fee.
• Offering a representative that has a duty/obligation to take a toll, fare, ticket, or admission fee, less than the stipulated amount of the toll, ticket, fare, or admission fee, in exchange for a fare, toll, ticket, or admission fee.

Defences

A strong defence against Fraud in relation to fares will depend on the circumstances of your case.

However, some defences might include:

• Having a reasonable justification or excuse;
• The elements are not made out (no actus reus, no mens rea)
• An applicable Charter defence

Punishment

The Crown’s choice to proceed either by indictment or summarily will impact the severity of the punishment.

Fraud in relation to a fare charge is fact-specific, so punishment for the offence can range significantly because the offence encompasses many different actions or behaviours. There is no minimum sentence associated with Fraud in relation to fares under s. 393(1), however, the maximum is two years imprisonment. The Code lists the maximum punishments as follows:

• 393(1)
  • Indictment: Up to two years imprisonment,
  • Summary: No mandatory minimum
• 393(2)
  • Indictment: Up to two years imprisonment
  • Summary: No mandatory minimum
• 393(3)
  • Summary: no mandatory minimum

Overview of the Offence 

According to s. 393(1) of the Code:

According to s. 393(2)

The Guilty Act s. 393(1) (Actus Reus)

The actus reus for fraud in relation to fares under 393(1) is established by proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the following:

That the accused person has a duty to collect a fare, toll, ticket, or admission and:

(a) fails to collect it,

(b) collects less than the proper amount, or

(c) accepts any valuable consideration for failing to collect it or for collecting less than the proper amount.

The Guilty Mind s. 393(1) (Mens Rea)

The mens rea for fraud in relation to fares under 393(1) is established by proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the following:

• That the accused person’s conduct was deliberate and intentional.

The Guilty Act s. 393(2) (Actus Reus)

The actus reus for fraud in relation to fares under 393(2) is established by proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the following:

That the accused person gives or offers to a person whose duty it is to collect a fare, toll, ticket or admission fee any valuable consideration

(a) for failing to collect it, or

(b) for collecting an amount less than the amount payable in respect thereof.

The Guilty Mind s. 393(2) (Mens Rea)

The mens rea for fraud in relation to fares under s. 393(2) is established by proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the following:

• That the accused person’s conduct was deliberate and intentional.

The Guilty Act s. 393(3) (Actus Reus)

The actus reus for fraud in relation to fares under s. 393(3) is established by proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the following:

• The accused person, by any false pretence or fraud, uses transportation without paying for it.

The Guilty Mind s. 393(3) (Mens Rea)

The mens rea for fraud in relation to fares under s. 393(3) is established by proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the following:

• Knowledge of the act and knowledge that the act would result in deprivation.

Defences

How to beat fraud in relation to fares Charge

As previously mentioned, each case may have very different outcomes. The above-noted defences cannot be used in all scenarios and may not even be applicable to your case.

Some defences for fraud in relation to fares are:

The elements are not made out (no actus reus, no mens rea)

The mens rea is not made out for the offence of fraud in relation to fares if you did not know your representation was false and you did not have fraudulent intent when making that representation.

An applicable Charter defence

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter). protects the rights of all Canadians. This includes rights that are engaged when you encounter law enforcement. For this offence, the burden of proof is high and the elements for this offence are difficult to prove. In addition to that, an experienced defence lawyer can raise Charter issues at and before trial that may help you secure a withdrawal or acquittal.

Punishments

Fraud in relation to fares carries a broad range of penalties, depending on what type of charge you are facing and what type of facts are present in your case. If you are charged with fraud in relation to fares under s. 393(1), the Crown may elect by indictment (more severe punishment ceiling) or summarily (less severe punishment ceiling). As noted above, if the Crown chooses to proceed by indictment, the maximum penalty for fraud in relation to fares under s. 393(1) is 2 years imprisonment. If the Crown chooses to elect summarily, there is no maximum or minimum penalty noted in the Code.

If you are charged with fraud in relation to fares under s. 393(2), the Crown may elect by indictment of summary and carries with it a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment.

If you are charged with fraud in relation to fares under s. 393(3), the Crown will proceed summarily.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is fraud in relation to fares a criminal offence in Canada?

Yes, fraud in relation to fares is a serious offence in Canada. As this article has touched on, fraud in relation to fares may look like very different things, because it is a very fact-specific offence. For example, fraud in relation to fares may involve asking a taxi driver to accept a payment other than the complete monetary amount of said taxi fare. Another example of fraud in relation to fares is if, you, as the collector of fares (bus driver, taxi driver, etc.), do not collect the complete monetary amount or value of said fare. As you can see from these two examples, fraud in relation to fares has a broad range of definitions.

How do you prove fraud in relation to fares?

The elements for fraud in relation to fares vary for the specific offence, but generally, the Crown must prove that you intended to deliberately deprive the person collecting the fare, or you, as the fare collector, intentionally and deliberately failed to collect the fare.

Can you go to jail for fraud in relation to fares?

Yes, you can go to jail for fraud in relation to fares, even if it is your first offence.

Published Decisions

R v. Bawol, 2005 ABQB 77 (CanLII)

The accused person was charged and convicted of fraud in relation to fares and he appealed the conviction. The appellate judge did not find error in the trial judges reasoning that the accused knew he was causing deprivation to the cab driver. Furthermore, the appellate judge noted that the accused had fraudulent intent, as he was aware he did not have money and that the taxi driver would not transport him if he communicated this to the driver. The accused was found guilty of fraud in relation to fares under s. 393(3) of the Code and the appeal was dismissed.

You can read the full decision here.

R v. Mugabo, 2019 ONSC 4308 (CanLll)

The accused person attempted to use the complainant’s credit card to pay for a taxi payment. The accused told the taxi driver he had money at home to pay and he fled from the taxi after that and did not return to pay the $45.00 payment. The accused person was charged with fraud in relation to fares under s. 393(3) of the Code and he did not dispute this charge at sentencing.

You can read the full decision here.