{
 "reviewed": "2026-07-15",
 "_provenance": "Authored 2026-07-12. Every Canadian maximum penalty verified against the corpus text of the Criminal Code (C-46) and CDSA (C-38.8), current consolidations; branch classifications apply IRPA s. 36(3)(a) (hybrid offences deemed indictable). Tran v Canada, 2017 SCC 50 (in-corpus) supplies the commission-date rule for assessing maximum penalties. Equivalency methodology per Hill v Canada (MEI) (1987), 73 NR 315 (FCA), as set out in IRB Legal Services, Sponsorship Appeals Ch. 2 (Criminal Refusals). These are the COMMON pairings only -- an unusual offence needs the full Hill analysis against the actual foreign statute.",
 "methodology": [
  {
   "id": "equivalency-framework",
   "title": "How offence equivalency works (step 2 of the s. 36 analysis)",
   "text": "Equivalency asks whether the foreign offence, if committed in Canada, would constitute a federal offence of the required seriousness. The governing test is Hill v Canada (MEI) (1987), 73 NR 315 (FCA): equivalency can be established (1) by comparing the precise wording and essential elements of the two provisions; (2) by examining the evidence of what the person actually did, to see whether it would satisfy the essential elements of the Canadian offence; or (3) by a combination of both. Key rules: (a) HYBRID DEEMING -- IRPA s. 36(3)(a): an offence prosecutable either way in Canada is deemed indictable, at its indictable maximum, even if it would likely proceed summarily; (b) TIMING -- Tran v Canada, 2017 SCC 50: the maximum penalty is assessed as of the DATE OF COMMISSION, so a later increase in the Canadian maximum does not retroactively convert criminality into serious criminality; (c) THRESHOLDS -- Canadian property offences split at $5,000 (theft, fraud, mischief), so the value in the foreign record often decides the branch; (d) the comparison is with the CANADIAN offence's elements -- a foreign offence broader than its Canadian counterpart requires the evidence branch of Hill to see what was actually done; (e) purely SUMMARY Canadian equivalents (e.g. causing a disturbance, s. 175) cannot ground s. 36(2)(b) inadmissibility on a single conviction -- only the two-or-more-convictions branch reaches them."
  }
 ],
 "pairings": [
  {
   "id": "dui",
   "us_terms": [
    "DUI",
    "DWI",
    "OWI",
    "OUI",
    "driving under the influence",
    "driving while intoxicated",
    "operating under the influence",
    "drunk driving",
    "impaired driving"
   ],
   "canadian_offence": "Criminal Code s. 320.14 (operation while impaired / over the legal limit); punishment s. 320.19",
   "penalty": "Hybrid; indictable maximum 10 years (s. 320.19(1)(a): 'liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years')",
   "branch": "SERIOUS CRIMINALITY -- IRPA s. 36(1)(b): via s. 36(3)(a) hybrid deeming, a single ordinary US DUI conviction equates to an offence punishable by 10 years",
   "status": "judicially-considered",
   "analysis": "The single most consequential everyday pairing: one US misdemeanor DUI grounds serious criminality, because Canada's impaired-driving offence is hybrid with a 10-year indictable maximum since December 18, 2018. Deemed rehabilitation is therefore unavailable (10-year-or-more maximum); only individual rehabilitation or a TRP cures it.",
   "caveats": [
    "TIMING (Tran, 2017 SCC 50): for offences COMMITTED before December 18, 2018, the equivalent was the former s. 253 (maximum 5 years) -- criminality under s. 36(2)(b) only, not serious criminality, and deemed rehabilitation remains available.",
    "Zero-tolerance administrative per-se findings are not convictions (see the DUI entry in the dispositions helper); this pairing addresses criminal DUI convictions.",
    "A US 'wet reckless' plea-down maps to careless/dangerous driving analysis, not s. 320.14 -- check what was actually convicted."
   ],
   "authorities": [
    {
     "cite": "Tran v Canada (Public Safety), 2017 SCC 50",
     "court": "Supreme Court of Canada",
     "holding": "The maximum term for equivalency/seriousness purposes is assessed as of the date of commission; subsequent increases do not apply retrospectively."
    }
   ]
  },
  {
   "id": "theft-under",
   "us_terms": [
    "petty theft",
    "petit larceny",
    "shoplifting",
    "misdemeanor theft",
    "theft under"
   ],
   "canadian_offence": "Criminal Code s. 334(b) (theft not exceeding $5,000)",
   "penalty": "Hybrid; indictable maximum 2 years (s. 334(b)(i))",
   "branch": "CRIMINALITY -- IRPA s. 36(2)(b) (foreign national); a permanent resident is NOT inadmissible on this alone",
   "status": "guidance-only",
   "analysis": "Ordinary shoplifting equates to theft under $5,000: hybrid, deemed indictable, 2-year maximum. One conviction makes a foreign national inadmissible for criminality; two convictions not arising from a single occurrence also engage s. 36(2)(b). Deemed rehabilitation after 10 years (single) per IRPR s. 18(2)(a).",
   "caveats": [
    "Convert the stolen value at the offence date: a US 'felony grand theft' at a low state threshold (some states: $500+) may still be theft UNDER $5,000 in Canadian terms -- the CANADIAN threshold controls the branch.",
    "Value over $5,000 -> s. 334(a), 10-year maximum -> serious criminality (see theft-over)."
   ],
   "authorities": []
  },
  {
   "id": "theft-over",
   "us_terms": [
    "grand theft",
    "grand larceny",
    "felony theft",
    "auto theft",
    "grand theft auto"
   ],
   "canadian_offence": "Criminal Code s. 334(a) (theft exceeding $5,000); motor vehicle theft s. 333.1",
   "penalty": "Indictable maximum 10 years (s. 334(a): 'not more than 10 years'); motor vehicle theft (s. 333.1) hybrid, 10 years",
   "branch": "SERIOUS CRIMINALITY -- IRPA s. 36(1)(b), where the value genuinely exceeds $5,000 (or the subject is a motor vehicle under s. 333.1)",
   "status": "guidance-only",
   "analysis": "Theft of property over $5,000 (Canadian dollars, at the offence date) is a 10-year offence: serious criminality; no deemed rehabilitation.",
   "caveats": [
    "The US felony label does not control -- verify the actual value against the Canadian $5,000 line; borderline values with exchange-rate movement deserve the evidence branch of Hill."
   ],
   "authorities": []
  },
  {
   "id": "assault-simple",
   "us_terms": [
    "simple assault",
    "misdemeanor assault",
    "battery",
    "simple battery",
    "assault in the fourth degree"
   ],
   "canadian_offence": "Criminal Code s. 266 (assault)",
   "penalty": "Hybrid; indictable maximum 5 years (s. 266(a): 'not exceeding five years')",
   "branch": "CRIMINALITY -- IRPA s. 36(2)(b)",
   "status": "guidance-only",
   "analysis": "US simple assault/battery generally equates to s. 266: hybrid, 5-year maximum -- criminality, not serious criminality. Deemed rehabilitation available after 10 years (single conviction).",
   "caveats": [
    "Bodily injury, a weapon, or choking moves the equivalent to s. 267 (10 years) -> serious criminality (see assault-aggravated).",
    "Domestic-violence variants equate to the same assault provisions; the DV character matters to sentencing and to some US dispositions, not to the Canadian equivalency.",
    "Some US assault statutes cover mere threats -- threat-only conduct maps to s. 264.1 (uttering threats, 5 years), same branch."
   ],
   "authorities": []
  },
  {
   "id": "assault-aggravated",
   "us_terms": [
    "aggravated assault",
    "assault with a deadly weapon",
    "ADW",
    "felony assault",
    "assault causing injury",
    "domestic battery with injury"
   ],
   "canadian_offence": "Criminal Code s. 267 (assault with a weapon / causing bodily harm / choking); s. 268 (aggravated assault)",
   "penalty": "s. 267: hybrid, indictable maximum 10 years; s. 268: indictable, maximum 14 years",
   "branch": "SERIOUS CRIMINALITY -- IRPA s. 36(1)(b)",
   "status": "guidance-only",
   "analysis": "Weapon involvement or bodily harm lifts the Canadian equivalent to s. 267 (10 years) or s. 268 (wounding/maiming, 14 years): serious criminality either way; no deemed rehabilitation.",
   "caveats": [
    "US 'aggravated' labels sometimes rest only on the victim's status (e.g. assault on an officer) -- if no weapon/injury, the closer equivalent may be s. 270 (assaulting an officer, hybrid 5 years) -> criminality only. Use the evidence branch."
   ],
   "authorities": []
  },
  {
   "id": "fraud",
   "us_terms": [
    "fraud",
    "bad checks",
    "check fraud",
    "insufficient funds",
    "credit card fraud",
    "identity theft",
    "wire fraud"
   ],
   "canadian_offence": "Criminal Code s. 380 (fraud); s. 342 (credit card offences); s. 402.2 (identity theft)",
   "penalty": "s. 380(1)(a): indictable maximum 14 years where value exceeds $5,000; s. 380(1)(b): hybrid, 2 years where value $5,000 or less",
   "branch": "SERIOUS CRIMINALITY over $5,000 (36(1)(b)); CRIMINALITY at or under $5,000 (36(2)(b))",
   "status": "guidance-only",
   "analysis": "Fraud splits on the $5,000 line exactly like theft. Bad-check convictions are usually small-value: hybrid 2-year equivalents -> criminality. Larger frauds (14 years) are serious criminality.",
   "caveats": [
    "Many US bad-check statutes criminalize mere non-payment without dishonesty elements -- where intent to defraud is not an element, the Canadian equivalent may fail on essential elements; use the Hill evidence branch."
   ],
   "authorities": []
  },
  {
   "id": "drug-possession",
   "us_terms": [
    "drug possession",
    "possession of a controlled substance",
    "simple possession",
    "cocaine possession",
    "meth possession",
    "narcotics possession"
   ],
   "canadian_offence": "CDSA s. 4(1) (possession); punishment s. 4(3)-(6) by schedule",
   "penalty": "Schedule I (cocaine, heroin, meth, fentanyl): hybrid, indictable maximum 7 years (s. 4(3)(a): 'not exceeding seven years'); Schedule III: hybrid, 3 years",
   "branch": "CRIMINALITY -- IRPA s. 36(2)(b) (7-year maximum is below the 10-year serious-criminality line)",
   "status": "guidance-only",
   "analysis": "Simple possession of hard drugs equates to CDSA s. 4(1): hybrid, 7-year maximum for Schedule I -- criminality, NOT serious criminality. Deemed rehabilitation available after 10 clean years for a single conviction.",
   "caveats": [
    "CANNABIS IS DIFFERENT: see the cannabis entry -- simple possession within legal limits is no longer an offence in Canada at all.",
    "Possession WITH INTENT to distribute equates to trafficking (see drug-trafficking): a completely different branch."
   ],
   "authorities": []
  },
  {
   "id": "cannabis-possession",
   "us_terms": [
    "marijuana possession",
    "cannabis possession",
    "possession of marijuana",
    "weed possession"
   ],
   "canadian_offence": "None for simple possession within legal limits -- the Cannabis Act legalized adult possession of up to 30 g of dried cannabis (public)",
   "penalty": "Not an offence in Canada (within limits); over-limit possession: Cannabis Act s. 8, hybrid, maximum 5 years less a day",
   "branch": "NO INADMISSIBILITY for simple possession equivalents: with no equivalent Canadian offence, neither s. 36(1)(b) nor s. 36(2)(b) can be made out",
   "status": "guidance-only",
   "analysis": "A US conviction for simple marijuana possession (an amount lawful in Canada) has no Canadian equivalent offence since October 17, 2018 -- there is nothing to equate, so the conviction cannot ground criminal inadmissibility. This is the clearest 'NO' in the pairing table.",
   "caveats": [
    "Quantities beyond Canadian legal limits, distribution, sale, cultivation beyond limits, and import/export DO have Cannabis Act equivalents (ss. 8-14; import/export max 14 years -> serious criminality).",
    "The equivalency is assessed against Canadian law at the ADMISSIBILITY DECISION date for the would-it-be-an-offence question -- post-legalization assessments of old possession convictions find no equivalent offence.",
    "US felony marijuana TRAFFICKING remains serious criminality (Cannabis Act s. 9/10 or CDSA analysis)."
   ],
   "authorities": []
  },
  {
   "id": "drug-trafficking",
   "us_terms": [
    "drug trafficking",
    "possession with intent to distribute",
    "PWID",
    "drug distribution",
    "sale of a controlled substance",
    "drug dealing"
   ],
   "canadian_offence": "CDSA s. 5 (trafficking / possession for the purpose)",
   "penalty": "Schedule I or II: indictable, maximum LIFE (s. 5(3)(a): 'liable to imprisonment for life'); Schedule III/V: hybrid, 10 years",
   "branch": "SERIOUS CRIMINALITY -- IRPA s. 36(1)(b) for any schedule (all branches reach at least 10 years)",
   "status": "guidance-only",
   "analysis": "Any trafficking or possession-with-intent conviction equates to CDSA s. 5: serious criminality at every schedule level. No deemed rehabilitation; individual rehabilitation after 5 years or TRP only.",
   "caveats": [
    "Also engages potential organized-criminality analysis (s. 37) where a criminal organization is involved."
   ],
   "authorities": []
  },
  {
   "id": "disorderly-conduct",
   "us_terms": [
    "disorderly conduct",
    "disturbing the peace",
    "public disturbance",
    "breach of the peace",
    "public intoxication"
   ],
   "canadian_offence": "Criminal Code s. 175 (causing a disturbance)",
   "penalty": "SUMMARY ONLY -- s. 175 is a pure summary conviction offence",
   "branch": "A SINGLE conviction grounds NO inadmissibility: s. 36(2)(b) requires an indictable-equivalent, and s. 175 is not one. TWO OR MORE convictions (not from a single occurrence) engage s. 36(2)(b)'s second branch",
   "status": "guidance-only",
   "analysis": "The most common harmless record: one US disorderly conduct/disturbing-the-peace conviction, equated to s. 175 (summary only), makes NOBODY inadmissible -- not even a foreign national. The two-or-more branch changes that, and IRPR s. 18(2)(b) then offers deemed rehabilitation five years after the sentences.",
   "caveats": [
    "Check what the conviction actually covers: some US disorderly statutes bundle assaultive or threatening conduct that would equate to hybrid offences -- the evidence branch of Hill controls where the statute is broader than s. 175.",
    "Public intoxication alone typically has no federal Canadian equivalent at all (provincial regulatory matter) -- even cleaner than s. 175."
   ],
   "authorities": []
  },
  {
   "id": "resisting-arrest",
   "us_terms": [
    "resisting arrest",
    "obstruction",
    "obstructing an officer",
    "evading arrest",
    "failure to comply with police"
   ],
   "canadian_offence": "Criminal Code s. 129 (resisting or obstructing a peace officer)",
   "penalty": "Hybrid; indictable maximum 2 years (s. 129(d): 'not exceeding two years')",
   "branch": "CRIMINALITY -- IRPA s. 36(2)(b)",
   "status": "guidance-only",
   "analysis": "Non-violent resisting/obstruction equates to s. 129: hybrid, 2-year maximum -- criminality only.",
   "caveats": [
    "Vehicle flight equates to s. 320.17 (flight from police: hybrid, 10 years) -> SERIOUS criminality -- distinguish on-foot obstruction from vehicular flight.",
    "Assaulting the officer moves it to s. 270 or s. 267 territory."
   ],
   "authorities": []
  },
  {
   "id": "threats",
   "us_terms": [
    "criminal threatening",
    "terroristic threats",
    "menacing",
    "harassment threats",
    "intimidation"
   ],
   "canadian_offence": "Criminal Code s. 264.1 (uttering threats)",
   "penalty": "Hybrid; indictable maximum 5 years for threats to cause death or bodily harm (s. 264.1(2)(a))",
   "branch": "CRIMINALITY -- IRPA s. 36(2)(b)",
   "status": "guidance-only",
   "analysis": "Threat offences equate to s. 264.1: hybrid, 5-year maximum -- criminality. Criminal harassment courses of conduct equate to s. 264 (10 years) -> serious criminality instead.",
   "caveats": [
    "'Terroristic threats' is a state-law label with no terrorism content -- do not confuse with IRPA s. 34 security grounds absent actual terrorism facts.",
    "Repeated/stalking conduct: s. 264 criminal harassment (10 years) -> serious criminality."
   ],
   "authorities": []
  },
  {
   "id": "mischief-vandalism",
   "us_terms": [
    "vandalism",
    "criminal mischief",
    "malicious mischief",
    "property damage",
    "graffiti"
   ],
   "canadian_offence": "Criminal Code s. 430 (mischief)",
   "penalty": "Value over $5,000: hybrid, indictable maximum 10 years (s. 430(3)); $5,000 or under: hybrid, 2 years (s. 430(4))",
   "branch": "CRIMINALITY at or under $5,000 (36(2)(b)); SERIOUS CRIMINALITY over $5,000 (36(1)(b))",
   "status": "guidance-only",
   "analysis": "Vandalism splits on the $5,000 damage value like the other property offences. Ordinary graffiti/vandalism records are 2-year equivalents -> criminality.",
   "caveats": [
    "The damage figure in the US record (restitution ordered is a good proxy) decides the branch -- convert to CAD at the offence date."
   ],
   "authorities": []
  }
 ]
}