Uttering Threats
Uttering threats is the criminal offence, under section 264.1 of the Criminal Code, of knowingly uttering, conveying, or causing any person to receive a threat to: (a) cause death or bodily harm to any person; (b) burn, destroy, or damage real or personal property; or (c) kill, poison, or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person. The offence is hybrid: summary maximum is 2 years less a day; indictable maximum is 5 years (for threats of death or bodily harm) or 2 years (for threats against property or animals).
Elements
The Crown must prove: (1) the accused uttered, conveyed, or caused another to receive a threat falling within one of the listed categories; (2) the accused intended the threat to be taken seriously, or was reckless or wilfully blind to whether it would be; (3) the threat was such that a reasonable person, in all the circumstances, would take it seriously. The recipient does not need to have actually feared the threat — the test is objective, focused on a reasonable person's reaction.
Mens rea
The Supreme Court in R v Clemente, 1994 clarified the mens rea: the accused must intend the words to intimidate or to be taken seriously. Mere joke, hyperbole, or expression of frustration that no reasonable person would take as a serious threat is not the offence. But where the accused intended to intimidate, the words need not have been received with fear — the offence is complete on the uttering with the requisite intent.
Common scenarios
Uttering threats files commonly arise from: domestic disputes (threats made during arguments or after relationship breakdown); workplace conflicts; road-rage incidents; social media communications (text messages, voice notes, posts); threats against police officers and other public officials; threats made during commission of other offences (robberies, assaults); and threats embedded in criminal harassment patterns.
Defences
Defences include: the words were not intended to be taken seriously (joke, frustration, venting); a reasonable person would not have understood them as threats; identification (the accused was not the source of the threat); duress; Charter challenges to investigation (particularly for digital communications); and lack of credible evidence of the words spoken. Cases often turn heavily on context — what was said before and after, the relationship of the parties, and the form of communication.
Resolution paths
Many uttering threats files — particularly those arising from isolated heated incidents — resolve through peace bonds (section 810) where the Crown has concerns about its case. Counselling-completion resolutions, discharges, and withdrawals are common in first-offender matters with strong mitigation. Mass Tsang's criminal lawyers regularly resolve threats files without conviction. For more, see our blog post on uttering threats charges in Ontario.
Related glossary terms
