Uttering Threats Lawyers Toronto

Yes. Uttering threats is a criminal offence under section 264.1 of the Criminal Code. It is a hybrid offence, so the Crown can prosecute it by indictment or by summary conviction.

Section 264.1 of the Criminal Code defines uttering threats broadly. A person may be charged if they utter, convey, or cause someone to receive a threat:

• To cause death or bodily harm to any person
• To burn, destroy or damage real or personal property
• To kill, poison, or injure an animal belonging to someone else

The law considers an utterance to be any spoken or written statement that conveys a threat. To secure a conviction, the Crown must prove that the accused meant the words to intimidate or to be taken seriously. It does not have to prove that anyone was actually afraid.

Yes. The accused does not need to communicate the threat directly to the intended victim. The offence is complete if the accused makes the threat to a third party. Courts have ruled that it is irrelevant whether the accused expected the third party to pass along the message or whether the intended victim ever learned about it.

Threats can be made verbally, in writing, or through electronic communication such as email, text, or social media.

Yes. The offence covers a threat made “in any manner”, so a text, email, direct message or social media post is treated the same way as words spoken aloud. The same two questions apply: would a reasonable person see the message as a threat, and did the sender mean it to intimidate or to be taken seriously? In online cases, whether the accused actually wrote or sent the message is often disputed.

To convict someone of uttering threats, the Crown must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that:

1. A threat was made. The statement—spoken, written, or electronic—conveyed a message that a reasonable person, aware of all the circumstances, would see as a threat of death, bodily harm, property damage or harm to an animal.
2. The threat was directed at a person or a group. It can target an identifiable individual, or an ascertained group of people, even if they were not present when it was made.
3. The accused intended to threaten. The Crown must show the accused meant the words to intimidate or to be taken seriously. Lack of intent can serve as a defence.
4. The words are judged objectively. Courts assess how a reasonable, fully informed person in the same situation would understand the words, not whether the person threatened actually felt threatened.

No. Courts focus on the meaning of the words and the intent of the person making the statement. Even if the recipient laughed it off or dismissed the words, the offence is established if the accused meant the statement to intimidate or to be taken seriously.

The recipient's reaction can still matter as evidence of what the accused meant. In R v O'Brien, 2013 SCC 2, the complainant's evidence that she was not frightened helped leave the trial judge with a reasonable doubt about the accused's intent.

Impossibility does not eliminate liability. For example, a statement such as "I'll throw you off the CN Tower" may still qualify as a threat. What matters is whether the words were intended to intimidate or to be taken seriously, not whether the accused had the ability or the intention to act on them.

The main defences are that the words were not a threat in context, that the accused did not intend to threaten, that it did not happen the way it is alleged, and that evidence was obtained in breach of the Charter. Each is explained in the defences section above.

Yes. The Crown can withdraw a charge where the evidence does not support it. Some threat charges are resolved by the accused agreeing to a peace bond under section 810 — a promise to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for up to 12 months, usually with conditions — in exchange for the charge being withdrawn. A peace bond is not a criminal conviction.

There is no minimum sentence for uttering threats, so a discharge is legally available, which means a finding of guilt without a conviction being registered (s. 730). Whether that is realistic depends on the words, the context, the relationship and the person's background. Even for first-time offenders, the consequences of a conviction can be devastating.

Uttering threats carries severe legal penalties:

• By indictment: Maximum of five years' imprisonment for a threat of death or bodily harm, and two years for a threat to property or an animal
• By summary conviction: Maximum of two years less a day, a fine of up to $5,000, or both
• Against an intimate partner: Since July 2026, a threat of death or bodily harm against a current or former partner can be charged under s. 263.1, with a maximum of 10 years on indictment

Fines may also accompany jail time. Beyond legal punishment, a conviction results in a criminal record, which can:

• Limit employment opportunities
• Restrict international travel
• Impact personal and professional relationships
• Create housing difficulties

Even for first-time offenders, the consequences can be devastating.

Since July 2026, section 263.1 of the Criminal Code lets the Crown charge an offence in which violence is used, threatened or attempted against an intimate partner — a current or former spouse, common-law partner or dating partner — as a separate offence. It raises the maximum sentence on indictment by one step: an offence with a maximum of five years, such as a threat of death or bodily harm, becomes 10 years. The rules that apply to the underlying offence otherwise continue to apply. The new offence applies only to conduct after it came into force.

It can. The court must consider a weapons prohibition order for any offence in which violence was threatened, lasting up to 10 years, or up to life where the threat was against an intimate partner or family member (s. 110). If the Crown proceeds by indictment and the threat was against an intimate partner, a child or parent, or someone living in the home, a prohibition is mandatory (s. 109).