I don’t think wrongful loss can be stretched so far, especially since Mischief under s. 425 covers what you’re referring to in quite explicit terms. In my opinion, from what I’ve learned, animo furandi cannot be read into mischief merely because it involves transient deprivation of property. That logic would bring within it even harmless prank. Snatching a phone without intention to keep it or profit from it anyway, with only intent to force to delete doesn’t amount to theft — of course, what it does amount to is mischief.

S. 425. Mischief — “Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief".”