Uttering threats is a criminal offence under section 264.1 of the Criminal Code. It applies when a person knowingly communicates a threat, in any manner, involving death, bodily harm, damage to property, or harm to an animal belonging to another person.
The offence does not require proof that the accused intended to carry out the threat. What matters is that the words or message conveyed amount to a threat and were communicated with the intent to threaten.
Under the Criminal Code, a person commits an offence if they knowingly utter, convey, or cause a threat to be received that involves:
Causing death or bodily harm to another person.
Burning, destroying, or damaging real or personal property;
Killing, poisoning, or injuring an animal or bird belonging to someone else.
Threats may be made verbally, in writing, or electronically, including by text message, email, voicemail, or social media. They may also be communicated directly or through a third party.verbalement, par écrit ou par voie électronique, notamment par message texte, courriel, message vocal ou sur les réseaux sociaux. Elles peuvent également être transmises directement ou par l’intermédiaire d’un tiers.
To secure a conviction for uttering threats, the Crown must prove certain elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
There must be words or a message that are threatening in nature. Courts begin by examining the ordinary meaning of the words used. When the words are clearly threatening on their face, no further analysis may be required.
In other cases, the context becomes crucial. Words that appear threatening at first glance may not amount to a criminal threat once the surrounding circumstances are considered. Conversely, words that seem relatively harmless may become threatening when viewed in light of:
The Crown must establish an intent to threaten. The offence does not require proof that the accused intended to follow through on the threat. It is enough to show that the accused intended to convey words that would be understood as a threat, rather than speaking accidentally or carelessly.
The assessment is objective. The court asks whether a reasonable person, in the same context, would interpret the words as a genuine threat.
The recipient’s reaction or fear may help explain the context, but it is not an essential element of the offence. The Crown does not need to prove that the complainant was actually frightened or felt threatened.
Courts have made it clear that uttering threats focuses on what was communicated and how it would reasonably be understood, not on whether the accused intended to act on the threat.
The analysis begins with the ordinary meaning of the words and then considers the context. In some situations, context can neutralize words that appear threatening. In others, context can elevate otherwise ambiguous language into a criminal threat.
The key issue is whether the accused knowingly communicated a threat, not whether they had the means or desire to carry it out.
During a heated exchange of text messages following a dispute, one person writes to a former co-worker: “If you keep this up, you’re going to regret it. I’ll take care of you.”
Even if the sender later claims they were just angry and had no intention of harming anyone, these words, when considered in their ordinary meaning and in context, could reasonably be interpreted as a threat of bodily harm. This may be sufficient to constitute the offence of uttering threats under section 264.1 of the Criminal Code.
The available penalties depend on the type of threat involved.
Do you have questions? Are you looking for criminal lawyers who accept legal aid mandates? Contact us now!
A single conversation can give you clarity and direction. Contact us now and we'll help you understand your options and take the next step with confidence.
