Uttering Threats Charges in Ontario

What Is Uttering Threats Under Canadian Law?

Section 264.1 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to knowingly utter, convey or cause another person to receive certain types of threats.

The section applies to threats:

• To cause death or bodily harm to any person;
• To burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or
• To kill, poison or injure an animal or bird belonging to another person.

A threat can be communicated directly to the person named in it or conveyed through someone else. It may be spoken, written, recorded or communicated electronically.

The court must examine the words in their full context. Not every angry, offensive or exaggerated statement constitutes a criminal threat.

How Can a Threat Be Communicated?

An uttering threats allegation may involve:

• A face-to-face conversation;
• A telephone or voicemail message;
• A text message;
• An email;
• A social-media post or private message;
• A video or audio recording;
• A letter or note;
• A statement made to a friend or relative;
• A gesture combined with words; or
• A statement communicated through another person.

The Crown does not necessarily have to prove that the accused personally delivered the threat to the intended recipient. Section 264.1 also applies where a person knowingly causes someone else to receive it.

The method of communication may affect how the evidence is interpreted and whether the Crown can prove authorship, meaning and intent.

Threats of Death or Bodily Harm

The most commonly prosecuted form of uttering threats involves an alleged threat to cause death or bodily harm.

The Crown must establish more than the fact that alarming words were spoken or written. The words must be capable of being understood as a threat to cause death or bodily harm when considered objectively and in context.

The prosecution must also prove that the accused intended the words to intimidate or to be taken seriously as a threat. The Crown does not necessarily have to prove that the accused intended to carry out the threat.

Threats to Property

Section 264.1 also prohibits knowingly communicating a threat to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property.

This may include an alleged threat to damage:

• A home;
• A vehicle;
• A business;
• Personal belongings; or
• Other property.

The exact words, the relationship between the parties and the circumstances in which the statement was made may determine whether it amounts to a criminal threat.

Threats Involving an Animal

A person may also be charged for knowingly communicating a threat to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird belonging to another person.

These allegations may arise during disputes between family members, neighbours, former partners or other individuals.

What Must the Crown Prove?

The Crown must prove every essential element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Depending on the allegation, the Crown may need to establish:

• The identity of the accused;
• The words or communication attributed to the accused;
• That the accused uttered, conveyed or caused another person to receive the communication;
• That the communication contained a threat covered by section 264.1;
• That a reasonable person, considering the full context, would understand the words as a threat;
• That the accused intended the words to intimidate or to be taken seriously; and
• That the accused knowingly communicated the threat.

The Crown generally does not have to prove that the accused intended to carry out the threat or had the immediate ability to do so.

However, the accused’s apparent ability, surrounding conduct and relationship with the complainant may form part of the context used to determine what the words meant and how they were intended.

Context Matters

Words cannot always be interpreted in isolation. The court may consider:

• The entire conversation;
• The tone in which the words were communicated;
• Statements made immediately before or afterwards;
• The relationship between the people involved;
• Whether there was an ongoing dispute;
• The accused’s conduct;
• The complainant’s response;
• The method of communication;
• Relevant cultural or language issues; and
• Other surrounding circumstances.

A phrase that appears threatening when viewed alone may have a different meaning when the full conversation is examined. Conversely, words that appear indirect may amount to a threat when considered in context.

Does the Complainant Have to Be Afraid?

The complainant’s reaction may be relevant evidence, but the offence does not necessarily depend on proving that the complainant was actually frightened.

The court considers whether the words, viewed objectively and in context, amounted to a threat and whether the accused intended them to be taken seriously or to intimidate.

Evidence concerning the complainant’s response may help the court understand the circumstances, but it does not by itself determine whether the offence occurred.

Does the Accused Have to Intend to Carry Out the Threat?

The Crown generally does not have to prove that the accused intended to carry out the threatened harm.

The central issue is whether the accused intended the words to intimidate or to be taken seriously as a threat.

A person may therefore be charged even where police do not allege that the person took steps to carry out the statement. However, the absence of such conduct may still form part of the surrounding context.

Evidence in an Uttering Threats Case

Evidence may include:

• Statements from the complainant;
• Statements from other witnesses;
• Text messages and emails;
• Social-media posts and private messages;
• Telephone records;
• Voicemail messages;
• Audio or video recordings;
• Security or cellphone video;
• Screenshots;
• Police body-worn camera recordings;
• Evidence concerning the relationship between the parties;
• Evidence of events before and after the alleged threat; and
• Statements allegedly made by the accused.

The reliability and completeness of the evidence may be important. A screenshot may omit earlier or later messages, and a witness may not have heard the entire conversation.

Text Messages, Screenshots and Social Media

Many uttering threats cases involve electronic communications.

The defence may examine:

• Whether the complete conversation has been preserved;
• Whether messages were deleted or presented selectively;
• Who controlled the account or device;
• Whether authorship can be established;
• Whether the screenshot is authentic;
• Whether the words were altered or taken out of context;
• The timing of the messages;
• Whether humour, sarcasm or another meaning is apparent from the full exchange; and
• Whether police obtained the electronic evidence lawfully.

The appearance of a person’s name or photograph on an account does not automatically prove that the person authored a particular communication.

Translation and Language Issues

Where the alleged threat was communicated in a language other than English, the accuracy of the translation may become important.

Words, idioms and expressions may not have an exact English equivalent. Tone and cultural context may also affect meaning.

The defence may examine:

• The original words used;
• Who prepared the translation;
• Whether the translator was qualified;
• Whether alternative meanings exist;
• Whether the complete conversation was translated; and
• Whether the alleged recipient understood the words in the same way.

A translated summary prepared by a witness or police officer may not capture the precise meaning of the original communication.

Possible Defences to an Uttering Threats Charge

The available defence depends on the words, evidence and circumstances. Possible issues may include the following.

The Words Were Not a Threat

The communication may have been angry, rude, conditional, exaggerated or offensive without amounting to a threat covered by section 264.1.

The words must be assessed objectively and in their complete context.

No Intent to Intimidate or Be Taken Seriously

The Crown must prove the required intent. The accused may not have intended the words to intimidate or to be understood as a serious threat.

The defence may rely on the conversation, tone, relationship between the parties and conduct before and after the statement.

The Accused Did Not Make the Statement

The accused may deny speaking, writing or sending the alleged threat.

Authorship, identification, account access and the reliability of witnesses or electronic evidence may become central issues.

The Communication Was Taken Out of Context

A single sentence, message or recording may not accurately represent the complete exchange.

Earlier and later communications may change the apparent meaning of the words or raise a reasonable doubt about the accused’s intent.

The Evidence Is Unreliable or Incomplete

The allegation may depend on a witness’s memory, an incomplete recording, selected screenshots or messages that cannot be authenticated.

The defence may examine inconsistencies and whether important evidence was preserved.

Ambiguous or Conditional Language

The alleged words may be open to more than one interpretation. A conditional statement is not automatically lawful or unlawful; its meaning depends on the wording and context.

If the evidence does not establish a criminal threat beyond a reasonable doubt, the charge cannot be proven.

Charter Violations

Police must respect the rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Issues may arise concerning:

• Unlawful detention or arrest;
• A search of a cellphone or computer;
• Seizure of private communications;
• Failure to provide timely access to counsel; or
• Statements obtained in violation of the accused’s rights.

Where a Charter breach is established, the defence may seek exclusion of evidence or another appropriate remedy.

Not every defence applies to every case. The disclosure and individual circumstances must be reviewed before a defence strategy can be determined.

Uttering Threats in a Domestic Context

Uttering threats charges frequently arise from disputes involving spouses, former partners or family members.

An accused person may also face related allegations such as:

• Domestic assault;
• Criminal harassment;
• Mischief;
• Forcible confinement; or
• Breach of a release order.

After an arrest, the accused may be prohibited from contacting the complainant or returning to the family residence.

Domestic release conditions remain legally binding unless they are formally changed. The complainant cannot personally authorize the accused to ignore them.

Uttering Threats Involving a Weapon

A threat involving a firearm, knife or other weapon may result in additional criminal charges.

Depending on the allegation, these may include:

• Possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose;
• Pointing a firearm;
• Carrying a concealed weapon;
• Unauthorized possession of a firearm; or
• Assault with a weapon.

The Crown must prove the essential elements of each separate charge. The presence of a weapon may also affect bail, release conditions and sentencing.

What Happens After an Uttering Threats Charge?

After an arrest, the accused may be released by police or held for a bail hearing.

Release conditions may prohibit the accused from:

• Communicating with the complainant;
• Attending the complainant’s home or workplace;
• Contacting specified witnesses;
• Possessing firearms or other weapons; or
• Using specified communication platforms.

The case will normally proceed through several stages:

• Release or bail;
• First court appearance;
• Receipt and review of Crown disclosure;
• Review of electronic or recorded communications;
• Crown pre-trial discussions;
• Judicial pre-trial, where appropriate;
• Charter applications or other motions;
• Resolution discussions; and
• Trial, if the matter is not otherwise resolved.

The accused must comply with every release condition unless it is formally changed.

Can the Complainant Withdraw the Charge?

The complainant does not normally control whether an uttering threats prosecution continues. Once police lay a charge, the Crown prosecutor determines how the case proceeds.

A complainant may provide further information or state that they no longer want the prosecution to continue. This does not automatically cause the charge to be withdrawn.

The accused should not contact the complainant to discuss changing or withdrawing the allegation, particularly where a no-contact condition is in effect.

Will an Uttering Threats Charge Result in Jail?

The possible outcome depends on:

• The type of threat;
• The words and surrounding circumstances;
• Whether a weapon was involved;
• The relationship between the parties;
• Whether the communication was repeated;
• The accused’s criminal record;
• Whether the accused was already subject to a court order; and
• Other aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

A threat to cause death or bodily harm may be prosecuted by indictment and carries a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment. Threats involving property or an animal are subject to different maximum penalties.

Potential outcomes may include withdrawal of the charge, a peace bond, diversion where available, a discharge, probation, a fine, a conditional sentence where legally available or imprisonment.

No particular outcome can be predicted without reviewing the evidence and individual circumstances.

Uttering Threats and Immigration Status

An uttering threats charge or conviction may create immigration consequences for a permanent resident, foreign national or other person who is not a Canadian citizen.

The potential effect depends on the offence, prosecution method, sentence and individual immigration status. Coordinated advice from criminal and immigration counsel should be considered before decisions are made concerning a plea or resolution.

Why Experience With Police Investigations Matters

Before becoming a criminal defence lawyer, Jake Shen served as a Toronto police officer. This experience provides practical insight into how police respond to threat complaints, interview witnesses, preserve electronic communications and assess potential risks.

As defence counsel, Jake reviews the investigation from the perspective of the accused and examines whether the words amounted to a criminal threat, whether the required intent can be proved and whether the evidence was obtained lawfully.

Speak With a Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyer

If you have been charged with uttering threats in Toronto, Markham or elsewhere in Ontario, obtaining legal advice early may help you understand the allegation, release conditions and evidence.

Contact Jake Shen to discuss the charge, the communications and the next steps in the criminal court process.

Tell Us About Your Case

The information on this page is general information and is not individualized legal advice. Reading this page or submitting a contact form does not by itself create a lawyer-client relationship.