Isn't there also the issue of whether the OP was actually convicted? I know we can only go on the information we have, but what the OP got sounds a lot more like a conditional discharge or supervision than a bona fide conviction.
If it wasn't a conviction, does it really matter what it was (I mean would it show up at all on a check)? What's the deal with not being convicted but admitting guilt-- I recall that it gets rather complicated.
If there was no conviction, one can't be found inadmissible under A36(1)(b), but could potentially be inadmissible under A36(1)(c) or A36(2)(c)—the "committing an act" provisions. These provisions are not generally used, however, when a person has been found not guilty of an offence in another country whose legal system is based on similar foundation and values as the Canadian system. Trust me, these criminal inadmissibility sections get mighty complicated with all of the common law and policy that's been created over the years.