Uttering Forged Passport Charges in Canada" width="250" height="250" />Uttering Forged Passport Charges in Canada" width="250" height="250" />
Forgery of or uttering forged passport is covered under s. 57(1) of the Criminal Code found in Part II. Part II covers “Offences Against Public Order.”
A forgery of or uttering forged passport charge occurs when a person, whether they are inside out outside Canada, forges a passport or knows a passport is forged, and then uses this passport themselves or has someone else use it. This makes passport forgery a specific crime in Canada, as forgery of other documents is a criminal offence under section 366(1) of the Criminal Code. This section defines forgery as knowingly making a false document with intent to be used to prejudice a Canadian citizen, or to be allowed or exempted from doing a task. Sections 366(3) and (4) specify that one can be charged with forging a document whether or not the forged document is complete.
Some examples of a forgery or uttering forged passport charge may include the following:
The defences available for a forgery or uttering forged passport charges are entirely dependent on the facts of your case.
However, some defences to a possession of explosive without lawful excuse charge may include:
A forgery or uttering forged passport charge is an indictable offence which entails a maximum punishment as follows:
Given this possibility, those charged with this offence qualify for a preliminary inquiry under s. 535 of the Criminal Code. Further, there is a Defence election of court under s. 536(2) of the Criminal Code.
A forgery or uttering forged passport charge also entails severe consequences for current and future employment opportunities and immigration status.
Have you been charged with Forgery of or Uttering Forged Passport?
Our experienced team of criminal defence lawyers is standing by to help you fight the charge. Contact us today for a free, no-obligation consultation to discuss the specifics of your case and craft a formidable defence.
57(1) Every one who, while in or out of Canada,
(a) forges a passport, or
(b) knowing that a passport is forged
(i) uses, deals with or acts on it, or
(ii) causes or attempts to cause any person to use, deal with or act on it, as if the passport were genuine,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
The actus reus for a forgery or uttering forged passport charge under s.57(1) is established by proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the following:
The mens rea for a forgery or uttering forged passport charge under s.57(1) includes proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that:
Every case is different. The availability and strength of any defence depend entirely on the specific facts of your case. The strength of any available defence rests on the evidence against you and the precise details of the allegations. However, the following are some common defences that may be used when fighting a forgery of or uttering a forged passport charge.
In Canadian Constitution Foundation v Attorney General of Canada, 2021 ONSC 1224, the court specifies that those committing an offence under 57(1) require both knowledge and intention to meet the mens rea requirements. Knowledge refers to the accused’s knowledge of the circumstances which they are held responsible for. If the accused had no knowledge that a passport had been forged, they would not meet the mens rea requirements for this offence.
In Canadian Constitution Foundation v Attorney General of Canada, 2021 ONSC 1224, the court specifies that those committing an offence under 57(1) require both knowledge and intention to meet the mens rea requirements. Intention refers to the intent of the accused to act in an unlawful way. Therefore, if the accused can prove that they did not intend to commit forgery or use a forged document, the mens rea requirements for the offence will not be met.
Section 57(1) deals specifically with passport forgery, whereas the forgery of other documents is covered under Section 366 of the Criminal Code. Forgery under section 366 is a hybrid offence and has a maximum punishment of 10 years of imprisonment, which is four years less than a charge under section 57(1). Therefore, if the accused can show that the document in question was not a passport, they may be subject to a more lenient sentence.
The Charter sets out your rights and freedoms before and after your arrest. If the police fail to abide by these rights deliberately or inadvertently, it could aid in your defence. If any of your Charter rights have been violated before or after your arrest, you may be able to have some or all of the evidence that the Crown is relying on to secure a conviction excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter. For example, the accused’s section 7 8 and 10 Charter rights were violated in R v Asipillai, 2015 ONSC 6881. This made evidence related to the forgery of documents inadmissible.
Depending on the circumstances of your case, a possible defence to a forgery of or uttering a forged passport charge may be to raise an identity defence. In this case, for this defence to be raised successfully, you will have to prove that you were not the person who used the forged passport. This defence may be applicable in situations in which someone else has stolen your identity to commit passport fraud.
The Criminal Code provides for a possible maximum term of imprisonment of no more than 14 years for those convicted of a forgery of or uttering a forged passport charge.
Persons found guilty of forgery of or uttering a forged passport are eligible for sentencing entailing a discharge, suspended sentence, stand-alone fine, custody, custody with a fine or probation or a conditional sentence order.
If you are found guilty of forgery of or uttering forged passport, you can go to jail. If the Crown proceeds by indictment, a forgery of or uttering forged passport charge carries a maximum sentence of no more than fourteen years in jail. There is no mandatory minimum for this offence. Therefore, there is a possibility that you can go to jail for a forgery of or uttering forged passport charge.
The maximum penalty for a possession of explosive without lawful excuse is no more than fourteen years imprisonment. This offence is indictable, meaning it is more serious than a summary conviction, in which the maximum sentence is 6 months imprisonment.
Forgery of or uttering forged passport is an indictable offence. This means that the Crown does not have the choice to elect this offence as a summary conviction, which has a lesser sentence. Since this offence is indictable, there is a longer term of imprisonment at risk, with the maximum sentence being no more than fourteen years imprisonment.
Though dealing with a different offence, this case interprets the mens rea requirements for a forgery of or uttering forged passport offence. This case specifies that both knowledge and intent are mens rea requirements for this offence, meaning that if an accused lacks one of these, the mens rea requirements of forgery of or uttering a forged passport cannot be met, and an accused would not be found guilty of this offence.
You can read the full decision here.
The accused was a passport officer who, on two occasions, accepted applicants for passports knowing that the information provided in these applications was false. As a result, the accused was charged with forgery of or uttering forged passport. At trial, the accused originally was found not guilty of forgery, as she did not physically make the passports themselves. However, on appeal it found that she still engaged in forgery by submitting the false documents, even if she did not make the passports herself.
You can read the full decision here.
The accused was waiting to pick up his father and brother at the airport. Border security had concerns regarding the validity of his brother’s permanent resident card, and asked the accused if he could obtain further documents to prove that his brother was indeed a permanent resident. The accused later provided three documents and provided them to border security. The documents appeared forged. In response, the accused was searched for items pertaining to passport forgery without being told the purpose for this search. Further, the accused was not given the opportunity to contact a lawyer. During a preliminary hearing it was found that the accused’s section 7, 8 and 10 Charter rights were violated, resulting in the evidence of the fake documents being inadmissible.
You can read the full decision here.
If you have been charged with a criminal offence, visit our location pages to contact our team.
Michael Oykhman is a senior lawyer and founder of Strategic Criminal Defence, a full-service criminal law firm with central law offices across Western Canada and Ontario.
My professional experience consists of countless court appearances and thousands of successful defences and satisfied clients. Over the last 10 years, I have worked to build a law office where all the lawyers share our collective experience, resources, and passion to help people. Our team approach to legal representation is client–rather than only law–centred. We look for opportunities to add value to our clients through strategic thinking and creative solutions.
We endeavor to respond to questions within 24 hours. If your matter is urgent, please call our office or submit a request for a free consultation.
" * " indicates required fields
We Are Available 24/7
" * " indicates required fields
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
R.W.Michael Oykhman is a very professional lawyer and the first time I spoke to him he asked about my situation and he gave me some very helpful advice and assistance and also told me his odds of winning this case. During the days I was in contact with micheal I could feel the level of professionalism of him and his team, he is able to respond back to you with any questions you have within 24 hours. In the end he was as successful in helping me win my case as he had initially promised me.If you are still struggling to find a lawyer, I highly recommend Michael Oykhman.
Y.Please give yourself a favour and contact Mr. Michael Oykhman if you need any legal advice or if you are in a terrible situation. Even-tough, the odds are not in your favour, still they will go extra miles to help you out in bad situation and get you favourable outcome. Moreover, They will work on your file even after the business hours. I don’t have words to say thanks to Mr. Michael oykhman and Kiran Cheema who had worked on my file and get me out of trouble. I’m very grateful for your assistance and exceptional service. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.
C.S.I am grateful that Ms. Moira McAvoy was my lawyer, and I remain thankful to her for everything. She made a successful resolution to my case possible. Ms. Moira McAvoy is a professional, trustworthy lawyer, and a compassionate person. She is an excellent listener and knowledgeable of the law. From the start, she was an excellent guide. I did not know anything about the legal system and court, and she outlined everything clearly in advance, so I could understand things. She never rushed me through anything. She spoke clearly, explained everything, considered what I said, and provided options and advice. She kept me up to date on new information, requirements, and deadlines. She was always positive and this helped so much.
A.P.Ryan Patmore and his team are simply the best. I was bullied by CPS in 2020 and it landed me with three separate charges, assault, refusal to blow and DUI, which all went down as I was parked at a friends. After some research and a conversation with Michael, he directed me towards Ryan and at the time I didn’t know that would be a game changer in my favour! He is honest, transparent, helpful and a brilliant mind. He successfully appealed my license suspension with ATSB and then proceeded to get the crown to dismiss all my charges before trial. I never had to step foot inside a courtroom. If you are in need of a criminal defence lawyer, don’t think twice, get in touch with this firm and ask for Ryan Patmore! The guy is an absolute saviour.
Joseph Beller, from the very beginning when I first contacted and then retained Joseph as my representative I felt I was in good hands. When I emailed him with a question. I got a prompt response. We communicated often on the phone as needed. Joseph kept me informed as to the process. He made sure I knew all the potential results so I knew and could plan for the different outcomes. I know this his his job. But appreciate his professionalism and also his ability to not make me feel any extra stress. Well done.
