Uttering threats in Ontario is a Criminal Code offence under section 264.1 . You can be charged for knowingly uttering, conveying, or causing someone to receive a threat to cause death or bodily harm, to damage property, or to kill or injure an animal that belongs to someone. The threat does not have to be spoken out loud — texts, emails, social media messages, and some gestures can qualify.
A conviction can mean a criminal record, jail exposure, and restrictive release conditions. If you have been charged, the practical questions are what the Crown must prove, how the election (summary vs indictable) affects penalty exposure, and what defences fit the facts.
Canada’s Criminal Code addresses uttering threats in s. 264.1, within the assault chapter. The offence is committed by everyone who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys, or causes any person to receive a threat:
Person-threats are treated more seriously than property or animal threats:
| Pathway | Crown election | Maximum exposure |
|---|---|---|
| Threat to cause death or bodily harm (s. 264.1(1)(a)) | Indictable | Up to 5 years imprisonment |
| Threat to cause death or bodily harm | Summary conviction | Default summary maximum under s. 787: fine up to $5,000, jail up to 2 years less a day, or both |
| Threat to property or animal (s. 264.1(1)(b)/(c)) | Indictable | Up to 2 years imprisonment |
| Threat to property or animal | Summary conviction | Same s. 787 default summary maximum |
“In any manner” means the medium is flexible. Courts have accepted threats conveyed in writing, online posts, texts, and, in some cases, gestures such as a throat-slashing motion. The Crown does not have to prove a motive, and it does not have to prove you were actually capable of carrying out the threat. A conditional threat (“I’ll hurt you if…”) can still be a threat in law.
There is no Criminal Code offence called “ verbal assault .” When people use that phrase, they usually mean uttering threats under s. 264.1 — the charge named on the information.
Police may arrest, release you on an appearance notice or undertaking, or hold you for a bail hearing, depending on the alleged facts and risk assessment. Domestic, workplace, school, and neighbour disputes commonly generate these charges — sometimes alone, sometimes alongside assault, criminal harassment, or mischief.
After charge:
Digital evidence is common: screenshots, message exports, social-media printouts, and device extractions chats. Defence work often includes authenticity questions (who sent the message, whether the thread is complete) and context that never made it into the Crown’s first package.
Ontario police investigate large volumes of uttering-threats incidents each year. Volume does not decide your case — the evidence and legal elements do. A skilled defence also watches collateral fallout: employment disclosure, immigration concerns for some accused persons, and firearms/prohibition consequences tied to the sentence or release order.
People say ugly things when they are angry. “I’m gonna kill you” is often empty venting. The criminal law still asks whether the utterance was a threat made knowingly, not whether you later regret it or never intended to follow through.
In broad terms, the Crown’s case usually turns on:
Credibility often matters because many files rest on the complainant’s account, screenshots, or a short recording. Context — joke, sarcasm, mutual sparring, incomplete message threads — can be central.
Every file is fact-specific. Where the complainant is the main Crown witness, the case may turn on whose account the court accepts. Early disclosure review can also lead to withdrawal, a peace bond discussion, or a reduced resolution in appropriate cases — none of which is guaranteed.
Two recurring defence themes are:
Other issues can include identity (who sent the message), authenticity of digital evidence, Charter concerns around statements to police, and whether related charges are driving the file more than the threat count itself.
Because uttering threats is hybrid, Crown election affects not only maximum exposure but also procedure and leverage in resolution talks. Summary election usually means a faster, lower-ceiling track; indictable election raises the ceiling and can change how aggressively the file is litigated. Defence counsel should map election timing against disclosure quality before any plea discussions harden.
Certain features can make release harder and sentencing risk higher if there is a conviction:
Uttering threats is a serious charge with real record and liberty consequences. Whether the Crown proceeds summarily or by indictment, you should not treat the file as “just words.” The criminal defence lawyers at Mass Tsang have decades of experience defending Toronto-area clients on assault-related and threats charges. Contact us for a free consultation if you or a loved one is facing uttering threats charges in the Greater Toronto Area.
