Uttering Threats Defence

Understanding Uttering Threats Charges

Uttering threats is a criminal offence under Section 264.1 of the Criminal Code. The law prohibits knowingly uttering, conveying, or causing any person 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 any person

This is a hybrid offence when the threat is to cause death or bodily harm — the Crown can proceed summarily or by indictment, with a maximum of 5 years imprisonment on indictment. Threats to property or animals carry a maximum of 2 years on indictment.

Critically, the charge does not require that you intended to carry out the threat — only that you intended the words to be taken seriously, or were reckless about whether they would be taken as a threat. You can be convicted of uttering threats even if you had no means or intention of following through.

What Constitutes a “Threat”?

Not every angry or aggressive statement is a criminal threat. The law requires that the words, taken in context, would convey a threat of death, bodily harm, property damage, or animal harm to a reasonable person. The courts assess the words in their full context, including:

• The relationship between the parties
• The tone and manner of delivery
• The setting in which the words were spoken
• Any history between the parties
• Whether the words were accompanied by any physical actions

A statement made as a joke, a figure of speech, an emotional outburst, or rhetorical hyperbole may not meet the legal definition of a threat — but this determination requires careful analysis of the circumstances.

Common Scenarios

Uttering threats charges arise in a wide range of contexts:

• Domestic disputes and relationship breakdowns — threats made during or after a heated argument, often in the context of separation or custody disputes
• Neighbour conflicts — escalating property or noise disputes
• Workplace confrontations — threats made to coworkers, supervisors, or employees
• Social media and text messages — threatening messages sent online, which are increasingly the subject of police investigations
• Road rage incidents — verbal threats made during a driving confrontation
• Bar fights and public altercations — threats made in the heat of the moment
• Voicemails and phone calls — recorded threats left on answering machines or during calls

The proliferation of text messaging and social media means that many threats are now documented in writing, which creates both challenges and opportunities for the defence.

Our Defence Strategy

1. Context and Interpretation

The single most important factor in a threats case is context. Words that appear threatening when read in isolation may have an entirely different meaning when understood in their full context. We present the complete picture:

• The full conversation or exchange — not just the isolated statement the Crown has selected
• The relationship between the parties and the nature of their communication history
• The emotional state of the accused and the circumstances that led to the statement
• Whether similar language had been used before without the other party treating it as a genuine threat
• Cultural and linguistic context — expressions that are threatening in one context may be common figures of speech in another

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the words must be looked at objectively, in context, and that the question is whether a reasonable person would consider them to be a threat. We build the contextual framework that demonstrates they were not.

2. Challenging Intent

The Crown must prove that you intended your words to intimidate or to be taken seriously as a threat. This mental element is essential. If the statement was made:

• In a moment of anger or frustration without any intention of follow-through
• As a joke, sarcasm, or off-hand remark
• As an expression of frustration rather than a genuine communication of intent to harm
• In the context of a mutual argument where both parties were making heated statements

…then the Crown may not be able to prove the necessary intent. We gather evidence of the circumstances and your state of mind to challenge this element.

3. Challenging the Evidence

Many threats cases rely on the testimony of a single complainant, often in a highly emotional situation. The evidence must be scrutinized carefully:

• Text messages and social media: We obtain the full message history — not just the selected messages the complainant provided to police. Often, the surrounding messages provide crucial context that changes the meaning entirely. We also examine whether messages have been edited, deleted, or taken out of sequence.
• Voicemails and recordings: We analyze tone, inflection, and the content of the full recording — not just a transcribed excerpt.
• Witness statements: Where there are witnesses, we examine whether their accounts are consistent with each other and with the complainant’s version.
• Prior inconsistent statements: We compare the complainant’s initial report to police with their subsequent statements and testimony to identify changes, additions, and contradictions.

4. Motive and Credibility of the Complainant

In many threats cases, the complainant has a motive to fabricate or exaggerate. Common motivations include:

• Gaining an advantage in a custody or family law dispute
• Obtaining a no-contact order to control housing or property arrangements
• Retaliating against the accused for a perceived slight
• Supporting an existing civil claim or restraining order application

We investigate the complainant’s background, the history between the parties, and the timing of the complaint to expose potential motivations.

5. Alternative Resolutions

Where the circumstances support it, we negotiate resolutions that avoid a criminal record:

• Peace bonds (Section 810): The charges are withdrawn in exchange for entering into a recognizance to keep the peace, with conditions such as no contact with the complainant. The peace bond is typically for 12 months.
• Diversion programs: Community service, counselling, or anger management programming in exchange for a withdrawal of charges.
• Withdrawals: In some cases, particularly where the complainant recants or the evidence is weak, we persuade the Crown to withdraw the charges outright.

Threats and Bail Conditions

Uttering threats charges almost always come with immediate bail conditions, including:

• No contact with the complainant
• No attendance at specified locations
• No possession of weapons
• Potential surrender of firearms and revocation of your PAL

These conditions take effect immediately upon your release and remain in place until the case is resolved. We advocate for reasonable conditions and bring variation applications where the conditions are disproportionate or unworkable.

Collateral Consequences

• Firearms: A conviction for uttering threats triggers a mandatory firearms prohibition order under Section 109 of the Criminal Code. If you are a firearms owner, this conviction will result in the loss of your licence and all firearms.
• Employment: A conviction for a violence-related offence can disqualify you from many jobs.
• Immigration: A threats conviction can trigger inadmissibility findings for non-citizens.
• Family law: A conviction can be used against you in custody and access proceedings.

Related Resources

• Domestic Assault Defence — threats charges frequently arise alongside domestic assault
• Criminal Harassment Defence — repeated threats may also be charged as criminal harassment
• Assault Defence — threats and assault are commonly co-charged
• How Can They Charge Me With No Evidence? — understanding credibility contests in “he said, she said” cases
• Collecting Digital Evidence — preserving text messages and social media that provide context for the alleged threat
• Firearms Licence Applications — a threats conviction triggers a mandatory firearms prohibition

Charged with uttering threats? Contact us 24/7 for a confidential evaluation of your case.