An Indian student studying in Canada has asked a court for a discharge after being convicted of theft and fraud at a supermarket, saying a criminal conviction could affect his immigration status and force him to leave the country. Jins Joseph told the court that he has spent about 100,000 Canadian dollars, or nearly ₹84 lakh, on his education in Canada and fears that leaving the country could force him to restart his degree elsewhere.
Joseph arrived in Canada in December 2022 and began studying for a Bachelor of Business Administration at Memorial University of Newfoundland’s Grenfell Campus in January 2023. He has lived in Newfoundland and Labrador for nearly four years. His study permit is due to expire on September 30. On July 24, he was convicted of eight counts of fraud under 5,000 Canadian dollars and one count of theft under 5,000 Canadian dollars.
Allegations of changing meat price stickers
The case relates to Joseph’s part-time job as a butcher at a Dominion store in Corner Brook. Evidence presented during the trial included surveillance footage that allegedly showed Joseph repeatedly changing price stickers on meat between March and May 2025.
According to the allegations, the price changes allowed Joseph, his friends and some other employees to purchase meat at significantly reduced prices. The store estimated that the activity caused losses of around 2,700 Canadian dollars, equivalent to approximately ₹2.3 lakh. Joseph was convicted in connection with the incidents.
However, Joseph presented a different account of the circumstances before the court. He acknowledged that changing price stickers was against store policy but claimed employees were allowed to take meat that would otherwise be discarded, provided they had permission from a manager or senior employee.
Student raises questions about supermarket practices
Joseph also alleged that his working hours had been reduced after he threatened to complain to the Labour Relations Board. He told the court that he had seen meat at the store containing what appeared to be cancerous or tumour-like portions. He claimed to have videos that he believed showed such meat.
He further alleged that the store sold some unsaleable meat at reduced prices to restaurants and takeaway businesses. Joseph said he had also provided discounted meat to roommates, neighbours and other people in need, claiming that management was aware of the practice.
These claims formed part of Joseph’s explanation of the circumstances, although the court has already convicted him on the theft and fraud charges.
‘If I leave Canada, I may have to restart my degree’
Joseph told the court that immigration lawyers had warned him that a criminal conviction could affect his ability to remain in Canada. He said that if he were required to leave, his current education could be disrupted and he might have to restart his degree in another country.
He also told the court that he has a partner in Canada and that they had planned to build their future together. His lawyer, Adam Crocker, asked the court to consider granting either an absolute or conditional discharge.
The defence argued that a criminal conviction could have serious consequences for Joseph’s education, employment prospects, eligibility for post-graduate work opportunities and continued residence in Canada.
Crown proposes conditional sentence
The Crown proposed a conditional sentence of five to six months less a day, followed by 12 months of probation. The court said potential immigration consequences could be considered when determining the appropriate sentence.
However, Judge Wayne Gorman stressed that a criminal conviction does not automatically result in deportation from Canada. He said there is no automatic sequence in which a conviction necessarily leads to removal from the country.
Joseph has since secured a new job, and his lawyer said he hopes to continue working in Canada after completing his studies.
The court has reserved its sentencing decision. A ruling on Joseph’s request for a discharge and the proposed sentence is expected on August 20. The decision will determine whether the court considers his circumstances sufficient to justify a discharge or another form of relief, or whether the Crown’s proposed sentence should be imposed.
