Uttering Threats: Criminal Code Section 264.1

Published March 2, 2026

Words can carry criminal consequences. Under Canadian law, uttering threats is a standalone criminal offence that does not require any physical act beyond the communication of the threat itself. A person who threatens to cause death, bodily harm, or property damage can face serious criminal charges, even if they never intended to carry out the threat and even if the threatened person never learned of it.

Uttering threats charges arise frequently in the context of domestic disputes, workplace conflicts, online communications, and confrontations between strangers. This article explains the legal elements of the offence, the penalties upon conviction, and the defences that may be available.

The Three Types of Threats

Section 264.1 of the Criminal Code identifies three categories of threats, each with different maximum penalties:

Threats to cause death or bodily harm (section 264.1(1)(a)): This is the most serious category. It is an indictable offence carrying a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. The Crown need not prove that the accused intended to carry out the threat — only that the accused knowingly uttered, conveyed, or caused someone to receive a threat to cause death or bodily harm.

Threats to burn, destroy, or damage property (section 264.1(1)(b)): This is a hybrid offence. On indictment, the maximum is two years. This category covers threats to damage real or personal property, including vehicles, homes, and other belongings.

Threats to kill, poison, or injure an animal (section 264.1(1)(c)): Also a hybrid offence with a maximum of two years on indictment. This provision addresses threats directed at animals owned by or in the care of the complainant.

In all three categories, the offence is complete when the threat is uttered or conveyed. It does not matter whether the threat was communicated directly to the target, through a third party, in writing, verbally, by text message, on social media, or by any other means.

What Constitutes a "Threat"

The legal definition of what constitutes a threat has been refined through case law. The Supreme Court of Canada addressed this issue in R. v. McRae (2013), holding that the offence requires proof that the words or actions, viewed objectively in the context in which they were spoken or written, would convey a threat of death, bodily harm, or property damage to a reasonable person.

Context is everything. The same words can be a threat in one context and an expression of frustration in another. Courts consider the relationship between the parties, the circumstances in which the words were spoken, the tone and manner of delivery, and whether there was a history of conflict or violence. A statement made in the heat of an argument may be interpreted differently than the same words delivered calmly and deliberately.

The Crown must prove that the accused intended the words to be taken seriously as a threat — or was reckless as to whether they would be perceived that way. An offhand remark that no reasonable person would take seriously may not meet the threshold, though this is always assessed in context.

Conditional threats — "If you do X, I will hurt you" — are still threats. The fact that the threat is contingent on some action by the recipient does not remove it from the scope of section 264.1.

Common Contexts for Uttering Threats Charges

Uttering threats charges arise across a wide range of situations:

Domestic relationships: Threats made during arguments between spouses, partners, or family members are among the most common bases for uttering threats charges. These charges frequently accompany domestic assault charges and are subject to the same mandatory charging policies that apply in domestic situations. Even where the alleged victim recants or expresses a desire not to proceed, the Crown typically continues with the prosecution.

Online and digital communications: Threats made by text message, email, social media, or messaging platforms are increasingly common. Digital threats create a clear evidentiary record, which can make them easier for the Crown to prove — but also easier for the defence to contextualize. The full chain of communications, including what the complainant said in the exchange, is often highly relevant.

Workplace disputes: Conflicts between coworkers, employee-employer disputes, and termination-related anger sometimes result in threats that lead to criminal charges. The professional consequences can be devastating, compounding the legal ones.

Road rage and public confrontations: Heated encounters in traffic or public spaces can lead to verbal threats that result in criminal charges. Witnesses and bystander video recordings are increasingly available in these situations.

Defences to Uttering Threats

The defence strategy in an uttering threats case depends heavily on the specific words used, the context, and the available evidence. Common defences include:

The words were not a threat: The defence may argue that the words, viewed in context, were an expression of frustration, anger, or hyperbole rather than a genuine threat. Courts recognize that people sometimes say things they do not mean in moments of emotional intensity. The question is whether a reasonable person in the circumstances would perceive the words as a threat.

Lack of intent: The Crown must prove that the accused intended the words to intimidate or be taken seriously, or was reckless as to that possibility. If the accused did not intend the words as a threat and a reasonable person would not have perceived them that way, the offence may not be made out.

The words were not uttered: In some cases, the defence is simply that the accused did not say the alleged words. This is particularly relevant in "he said, she said" situations where there is no recording or independent witness. The Crown bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the words were spoken.

Context and relationship: The broader context of the relationship and the communications between the parties can be highly relevant. If the parties had a pattern of heated exchanges, sarcasm, or exaggerated language, this context may affect whether a reasonable person would perceive a specific statement as a genuine threat.

Charter violations: If the accused made statements to police that were obtained in violation of their right to silence or right to counsel, those statements may be excluded from evidence.

Penalties and Consequences

A conviction for uttering threats results in a criminal record and potential incarceration. For threats to cause death or bodily harm, sentences for first offenders typically range from probation and conditional discharges (in less serious cases) to periods of incarceration (where the threat was serious, the complainant was particularly vulnerable, or there is a history of violence).

Ancillary orders may include no-contact provisions, weapons prohibitions, and requirements to attend counselling. Where the charge arises in a domestic context, strict conditions regarding contact with the complainant are standard both at the bail stage and following conviction.

The consequences of a criminal record for uttering threats extend to employment, travel, and immigration. Many employers and professional licensing bodies view a conviction for violent threats with particular concern, making it essential to pursue every reasonable avenue to avoid a conviction.

Taking Uttering Threats Charges Seriously

Uttering threats charges are sometimes dismissed by the accused as trivial — "I just said something stupid" — but the courts treat them seriously. The offence exists because threats cause genuine fear and can escalate to violence. Even where the accused had no intention of acting on the words, the criminal law holds that making someone fear for their safety is itself worthy of sanction.

If you are facing uttering threats charges in Ontario, contact a criminal defence lawyer to discuss the specifics of your case. The available defences depend entirely on the context, and experienced legal counsel can assess whether the Crown's case meets the legal standard.

For the full text of section 264.1, see the Criminal Code of Canada.