Is There a Felony in Canada? Indictable, Summary, and Hybrid Offences Explained

Canada's Criminal Code has no felony or misdemeanor categories. Offences are classified as indictable, summary conviction, or hybrid, under the federal Interpretation Act, and which label applies depends on how the individual offence is written into the Code.

Information last verified on 2026-08-15. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Why "felony" does not translate directly to Canadian law

American readers searching "felony in Canada" are looking for the equivalent of a category that simply does not exist in the Criminal Code. The US divides crimes into felonies and misdemeanors based on the length of the potential sentence. Canada has never organized its Criminal Code that way.

The provision that actually controls the classification is not in the Criminal Code at all. It is section 34 of the federal Interpretation Act:

"34 (1) Where an enactment creates an offence, (a) the offence is deemed to be an indictable offence if the enactment provides that the offender may be prosecuted for the offence by indictment; (b) the offence is deemed to be one for which the offender is punishable on summary conviction if there is nothing in the context to indicate that the offence is an indictable offence; and (c) if the offence is one for which the offender may be prosecuted by indictment or for which the offender is punishable on summary conviction, no person shall be considered to have been convicted of an indictable offence by reason only of having been convicted of the offence on summary conviction."

In plain terms, whether an offence is indictable, summary, or hybrid is decided by how the specific offence is written into the Criminal Code or another federal statute, not by a single across-the-board sentencing threshold the way the US felony and misdemeanor split works.

Three categories: indictable, summary conviction, and hybrid

Indictable offences are Canada's most serious category, covering crimes such as murder and robbery. Unlike the US system, there is no single ceiling that defines an indictable offence. Each offence in the Criminal Code sets its own maximum penalty, and for the most serious offences that maximum reaches life imprisonment.

Summary conviction offences are the less serious category, generally handled in provincial court without a jury. Criminal Code section 787(1) sets the default maximum penalty that applies unless a specific offence says otherwise:

"787 (1) Unless otherwise provided by law, every person who is convicted of an offence punishable on summary conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000 or to a term of imprisonment of not more than two years less a day, or to both."

That two-year-less-a-day, $5,000 default is the current figure. It reflects an amendment made by Bill C-75 in 2019, which raised the previous six-month default maximum. A page describing summary conviction penalties without reflecting that 2019 change is describing outdated law.

Hybrid offences, also called dual-procedure offences, can be prosecuted either as indictable or as summary conviction, and the Crown decides which route to pursue in a given case. The Interpretation Act's own language is precise on a related point that is easy to get wrong: a hybrid offence is deemed indictable because the enactment allows prosecution by indictment, but a person is not considered to have been convicted of an indictable offence merely because their hybrid charge was ultimately prosecuted summarily. Secondary legal commentary describes hybrid offences as generally treated as indictable for many procedural purposes, such as fingerprinting and bail, until or unless the Crown elects to proceed summarily. That characterization was not independently verified against the primary Criminal Code procedural provisions for this article, so treat it as a widely used practical description rather than something section 34 itself states.

Crown election: who decides how a hybrid charge proceeds

For a hybrid offence, the Crown chooses whether to proceed by indictment or by summary conviction, and that election affects the court process, the accused's trial rights, and the range of available penalties. The detailed procedural mechanics of how and when that election is made, and how an accused person elects their mode of trial in response, sit in the Criminal Code's procedural provisions governing summary conviction and indictable proceedings. This article focuses on the classification framework verified above rather than walking through every procedural step, since the election mechanics were not independently re-verified against the primary text for this article. If you are facing a hybrid charge, ask your defence lawyer specifically how the Crown has elected in your case and what that means for your trial.

The US immigration angle: does a Canadian conviction count as a "felony" at the border

A common and consequential misconception is that US immigration authorities convert a Canadian conviction into a "felony equivalent" to decide whether someone can enter or stay in the United States. That is not how the analysis works.

Under US immigration law, inadmissibility for a non-citizen generally turns on whether the underlying conduct is a "crime involving moral turpitude." The Immigration and Nationality Act provides:

"Except as provided in clause (ii), any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed... (I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime... is inadmissible."

A State Department consular regulation implementing that standard adds:

"A Consular Officer may make a finding of ineligibility under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) based upon an alien's admission of the commission of acts which constitute the essential elements of a crime involving moral turpitude, only if the acts constitute a crime under the criminal law of the jurisdiction where they occurred. However, a Consular Officer must base a determination that a crime involves moral turpitude upon the moral standards generally prevailing in the United States."

The moral turpitude standard is assessed by US authorities based on the underlying conduct and on standards prevailing in the United States, independent of whether Canada classified the offence as indictable, summary, or hybrid. A hybrid offence resolved summarily in Canada, which might feel minor because it avoided the indictable track, can still trigger US inadmissibility if the underlying conduct involves moral turpitude. The honest framing is not that the US treats a Canadian conviction as if it were a felony. It is that the US does not ask what Canada called the offence at all; it runs its own conduct-based test.

US immigration law does carry exceptions for certain low-level convictions in some circumstances. This article does not state a specific sentence-length or conviction-count threshold for such an exception, because that detail was not independently confirmed against the primary regulatory text for this article. Anyone weighing US entry or immigration status against a Canadian conviction, including a summary or hybrid one, should get a case-specific assessment from a US immigration lawyer rather than relying on a general rule of thumb.

What this means practically

If you are trying to understand how serious a Canadian charge is, start with how the specific offence is written into the Criminal Code, not with an American felony or misdemeanor label. An indictable charge is the more serious end of the spectrum, with penalties set offence by offence. A summary conviction charge defaults to the section 787(1) maximum unless the offence itself sets something different. A hybrid charge sits in between, with the Crown choosing the track.

If US travel, work, or immigration status is part of what is at stake, treat the Canadian classification and the US moral turpitude analysis as two separate questions, because they are. A criminal record can also affect travelling with a criminal record and how a criminal record check or background check for employment reads afterward, and later options like a record suspension or pardon turn on the same indictable, summary, or hybrid classification described above. For how your rights work if you are arrested or questioned in the first place, see Miranda rights in Canada, and for how long the Crown has to act on a charge, see statute of limitations in Canada.

Disclaimer

This article provides general information about how Canada classifies criminal offences and how that interacts with US immigration screening, and it is not legal advice. Two items are worth flagging explicitly: the detailed Crown election procedure for hybrid offences was not independently re-verified against the primary Criminal Code text for this article, and no specific sentence-length or conviction-count threshold for a US "petty offense" style exception is stated here because that detail was not independently confirmed. If you are facing a criminal charge in Canada, speak with a criminal defence lawyer immediately. If US entry, work authorization, or immigration status depends on how a Canadian conviction will be treated, speak with a US immigration lawyer before you travel.