In Canadian criminal law, the entrapment defence applies when police create or induce a crime without proper legal justification, making the prosecution an abuse of process. If entrapment is proven, the court may stay the charges entirely — even after a finding of guilt. However, entrapment is challenging to establish and depends heavily on how the police initiated and conducted their investigation.
Entrapment is a common-law defence rooted in the principle that the justice system must not tolerate crimes manufactured by the state. The focus is not on whether the accused committed the act, but on whether police conduct crossed the line into unacceptable behaviour.
Canadian courts treat entrapment as an abuse of the legal process. When proven, the remedy is not an acquittal, but a stay of proceedings, meaning the charges are halted and cannot proceed further.
Unlike many defences, entrapment is typically raised after a finding of guilt, during a separate application before sentencing.
Canadian law recognizes two distinct forms of entrapment: opportunity-based and inducement-based.
Opportunity-based entrapment occurs when police provide someone with an opportunity to commit a crime without having reasonable suspicion that the person is already engaged in that specific criminal activity.
For example, police cannot randomly target individuals and offer illegal opportunities simply to see who accepts. Without reasonable suspicion, such conduct risks violating Charter protections and creating crimes that may never have occurred otherwise.
The key issue is reasonable suspicion — whether police had objective, credible grounds to believe the person was already involved in the offence.
Inducement-based entrapment focuses not on suspicion, but on police behaviour.
Even where reasonable suspicion exists, police are not permitted to induce criminal behaviour through:
Proving inducement is difficult. Courts require clear evidence that police went beyond providing an opportunity and instead actively persuaded or pressured the accused to commit the offence.
Reasonable suspicion is often the deciding factor in entrapment cases.
Canadian courts have repeatedly emphasized that reasonable suspicion must be:
When police act without reasonable suspicion, they risk overstepping constitutional boundaries and undermining public confidence in the justice system.
“Entrapment cases often turn on whether police crossed the line from investigation into creation. Reasonable suspicion is what keeps that line in place.”
— Jeff Mass, Criminal Defence Lawyer & Managing Partner
Because entrapment is highly fact-specific, courts examine the totality of the circumstances. Common factors include:
No single factor is determinative. Courts look at how the investigation unfolded as a whole.
Entrapment is not available in all cases.
Canadian courts have placed clear limits on its use:
Because of these limitations, defence lawyers only pursue entrapment where there is credible evidence of police misconduct.
“Entrapment is a powerful defence, but it’s not a routine one. It requires clear proof that police conduct, not the accused, drove the offence.”
— Heather Spence, Criminal Defence Lawyer & Partner
In practice, entrapment applications are relatively rare. The subjective nature of reasonable suspicion and the high evidentiary threshold for inducement make success difficult.
However, when the defence applies, the consequences are significant. A successful entrapment application can end a prosecution entirely, even after a conviction on the underlying offence.
This is why entrapment is typically considered as part of a broader defence strategy, rather than a standalone argument.
Entrapment is not a defence that applies in most cases — but when it does, it can be decisive. Identifying entrapment requires a detailed review of police conduct, disclosure materials, and investigative tactics.
The defence lawyers at Mass Tsang carefully assess every aspect of a case to determine whether police conduct crossed legal boundaries. When appropriate, they pursue entrapment applications as part of a strategic approach to protecting their clients’ rights and securing the most favourable outcome possible.
If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges, experienced legal advice can determine not only how the case proceeds — but whether it should proceed at all.
Entrapment occurs when police create or induce a crime without proper legal justification. In Canadian law, it is treated as an abuse of process, meaning the focus is on police misconduct rather than the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Yes. If entrapment is proven, the court may issue a stay of proceedings, which permanently halts the prosecution — even after a finding of guilt on the underlying offence.
Entrapment is typically raised after guilt is established but before sentencing, through a separate application alleging abuse of process by police.
Canadian courts recognize:
Both forms focus on improper police conduct.
Reasonable suspicion must be based on objective, corroborated evidence that the person was already engaged in the specific criminal activity. It cannot rely on hunches, stereotypes, or unverified tips.
No. Entrapment does not apply to violent offences, extradition proceedings, or situations involving private individuals. Only conduct by law enforcement officers can give rise to an entrapment defence.
Entrapment is highly fact-specific and challenging to prove. Courts apply a strict standard, and defence lawyers typically raise it only where there is clear evidence that police conduct crossed legal boundaries.
No. Entrapment does not establish innocence. Instead, it argues that the prosecution itself is improper because the crime was effectively manufactured by the state.
