Call Us 24/7 AT (416) 658-1818
Threatening someone can be a criminal offence in Canada. This is defined as such in the Canadian Criminal Code as Uttering Threats in section 264.1. If one is convicted of Uttering Threats, it results in a criminal record for the accused. Threats can be expressed through different modes of communication.
Section 264.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada defines uttering threats as an offence. Anyone in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys, or causes any person to receive a threat, is committing an offence. These threats include causing death or bodily harm to any person, burning, destroying, or damaging real or personal property, or killing, poisoning, or injuring an animal or bird that belongs to any person.
For offences under paragraph 1(a), one is either guilty of an indictable offence liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months. However, for offences under paragraph 1(b) or (c), one is either guilty of an indictable offence liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or an offence punishable on summary conviction.
To find someone guilty of a Uttering Threats offence, the Crown has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt several elements. These include proving the date and time that the alleged threat occurred and that the accused indeed uttered the words, text or gesture that comprised the threat.
Also, they must demonstrate that the words, text or gesture communicated a threat to cause death or serious bodily harm to a person, including psychological harm, to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property, or to kill, poison, or injure an animal that is the property of any person. Moreover, the words, text or gesture should have been intended to be interpreted seriously as a threat.
Several other factors are considered when determining guilt of an uttering threats offence. The accused's demeanour as the words were being said is taken into account, as is the method by which the threat was conveyed.
Also pertinent is the motivation of the accused for uttering the threat. The effect the words had on the recipient is considered but is not an essential determining factor. Irrespective of whether or not the accused was capable of or intended to carry out the threat, it remains irrelevant.
The fact that the subject of the threats did not feel threatened is not, by itself, a reason to acquit. Lastly, in cases involving third parties, it is not required that the accused intended the third-party recipient of the threat to convey it to the target.
To convict someone of an Uttering Threats offence, the Crown must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. To counter this, the defence, like Toronto Defence Lawyers, has the opportunity to introduce doubt. If they argue this successfully, it can result in an acquittal for the accused.
The defence can maintain that the utterance had another plausible alternative meaning and was intended to be interpreted differently. Furthermore, they can contend that the utterance in question was ambiguous and does not necessarily amount to a threat. For instance, when said in isolation phrases like “I’ll get you” can be argued not to be an utterance of a threat as the ambiguity renders it questionable.
