Civil vs Criminal Complaints

More evidence is needed to find the accused at fault in criminal cases than to find the defendant at fault in civil ones. To convict someone of a crime, the prosecution must show there is
proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime and, in most cases that they intended to commit it. Judges and juries cannot convict someone they believe probably committed the crime or likely is guilty – they must be almost certain. This gives the accused the benefit of any reasonable doubt and makes it less likely an innocent person will be wrongfully convicted and imprisoned. Civil cases, in contrast, must be proven on a balance of probabilities – if it is more likely than not that the defendant caused harm or loss, a court can uphold a civil claim.

The local Crown indicated that the difference between whether a case is deemed to be Civil or Criminal is the fact that it has to be “APPARENT” that the person intended to take the money without any work being done. If this can’t be established then the only other recourse to prove criminal intent is to establish a “PATTERN” multiple complainants which establishes the same pattern of behavior. Then the case could be viewed by the Crown as Criminal instead of civil.

Otherwise complainant(s) must seek civil remedies to deal with their disputes. Initiate a small claims action or report them to the Better Business Bureau, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Electrical Safety Authority. Canada Revenue Agency leads can be launched if money was taken and the person feels that this income in not being reported.