Uttering threats is a criminal charge that does not require any physical contact or even an intention to actually carry out the threatened act. Words said in anger, in a text message, or online can, in the right circumstances, form the basis of a criminal charge. This guide explains how uttering threats is defined under section 264.1 of the Criminal Code, how it is classified, the potential penalties, and what generally happens after this kind of charge in Ontario. It is general legal information, not legal advice about a specific case.
What Counts as Uttering Threats?
Section 264.1 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to knowingly utter, convey, or cause any person to receive a threat to cause death or bodily harm to any person, to burn, destroy, or damage property, or to kill, poison, or injure an animal that belongs to someone. The threat can be made orally, in writing, or through any other means, including text messages, social media, or email. It does not need to be communicated directly to the person being threatened; a threat conveyed to a third party, intending that it reach the target, can also meet this definition.
Actually Carrying Out the Threat Is Not Required
A common misunderstanding is that a person must have intended, or been capable of, actually carrying out a threat for it to be criminal. That is not the legal test. The offence focuses on whether the words or actions, viewed objectively in their full context, would convey a threat of death, bodily harm, or damage to a reasonable person, and whether they were meant to be taken seriously as a threat rather than, for example, an obvious joke understood as such by everyone present. Statements made in the heat of an argument, including statements the speaker may not have genuinely meant, can still meet the legal definition if they would reasonably be understood as a threat.
Classification and the Criminal Code
Uttering threats is a hybrid offence, allowing the Crown to elect to proceed by summary conviction or by indictment. The maximum penalty differs depending on the type of threat involved.
Uttering Threats (Section 264.1) at a Glance
- Classification
- Hybrid offence (Crown elects summary conviction or indictment)
- Criminal Code section
- Section 264.1
- Maximum penalty – threats to cause death or bodily harm
- Up to 5 years imprisonment on indictment; up to 2 years less a day on summary conviction
- Maximum penalty – threats to property or an animal
- Up to 2 years imprisonment on indictment; a lesser maximum on summary conviction
- Mandatory minimum sentence
- None for a standard section 264.1 charge
These figures reflect the maximum penalties set out in the Criminal Code as of this page's last update. Actual sentences depend on the nature and seriousness of the threat and the person's record. Some mandatory minimum penalties elsewhere in the Criminal Code have been struck down as unconstitutional by courts in recent years; a criminal lawyer can confirm the current state of the law for any related charge.
Potential Penalties
Sentencing outcomes for uttering threats vary widely depending on the specificity and seriousness of the threat, whether it was part of a pattern of intimidation, the relationship between the parties, and whether the person has a prior record. A single threat made during an isolated argument, with no history of violence, is generally treated differently from a specific, detailed threat made repeatedly or in a context involving domestic violence. See our sentencing overview for the general principles Ontario courts apply.
At the lower end of the range, outcomes such as a discharge, probation, or a peace bond resolution are possible, particularly for a first-time offender where the threat was not accompanied by any physical conduct. At the higher end, where the threat is specific, repeated, or made in a context involving an existing pattern of intimidation or violence, custodial sentences become more likely. Courts will also consider whether the person has taken any steps toward addressing underlying issues, such as anger management or substance use counselling, where relevant to the circumstances of the offence.
How Context Matters
Because this offence is based on words or communications rather than physical conduct, context is central to how these cases are assessed. Courts consider the relationship between the parties, the setting in which the statement was made, the tone and manner of delivery, and how the statement was actually understood by those who heard or received it. A statement that would be obviously understood as hyperbole among close friends might be assessed differently if made to a stranger, or if made in a context involving an existing conflict or history of violence.
How This Relates to Other Charges
Uttering threats charges frequently arise alongside other charges, depending on the full pattern of conduct:
- Where threats are part of a broader pattern of following or repeated contact, a criminal harassment charge may also apply.
- Where the threat is made in the context of an intimate partner relationship, it may be discussed alongside domestic assault allegations, even if no physical contact occurred.
- Where the threat accompanies actual physical force, an assault charge may be laid in addition to, or instead of, an uttering threats charge.
- Where a threat is made using a weapon or an imitation weapon, additional charges under Ontario's weapons-related provisions may apply; see our weapons offences pages for more.
Because this offence can be based entirely on words, saved text messages, voicemail, or witness accounts of what was said are often central to these cases, for both the Crown and the defence.
Threats made during a mental health crisis, or in a moment of significant emotional distress, can still meet the legal definition of this offence, though the surrounding circumstances may be relevant to how the case is ultimately resolved, including whether alternatives to a conventional prosecution, such as a mental health diversion program where available, might apply.
Possible Defences
Defending an uttering threats charge often focuses on whether the words used, viewed objectively in context, actually amounted to a threat as opposed to an emotional outburst, a figure of speech, or hyperbole clearly understood as such by everyone involved. Other issues that can arise include whether the person actually said what is alleged, whether the communication was accurately recorded or reported, and whether the Crown can prove the person intended the words to be taken as a threat, or was at least aware their words could reasonably be understood that way. A criminal lawyer should review the exact words alleged, along with the surrounding context, before advising on possible defences.
What Happens After This Charge
A person charged with uttering threats will often face bail conditions including a no-contact order with the person threatened. Our page on how bail hearings work and our page on bail conditions explain this process further. The case then proceeds through the general court process described on our first appearance and disclosure pages, before moving toward a resolution or a trial. A conviction results in a criminal record, discussed on our criminal records overview.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I be charged for something I said but didn't mean?
Potentially, yes. The legal test does not require that the person genuinely intended to carry out the threat, only that the words, viewed in context, would reasonably be understood as a threat and were meant to be taken seriously.
Does a threat have to be made directly to the person being threatened?
No. A threat conveyed to a third party, where the person intends or expects it to reach the target, can still meet the legal definition under section 264.1.
Can a threat made online or by text message lead to charges?
Yes. The Criminal Code does not limit this offence to spoken words. Threats made in writing, including by text message, email, or social media, can form the basis of a charge.
Is threatening to damage property as serious as threatening a person?
The Criminal Code treats threats to cause death or bodily harm more seriously than threats against property or an animal, which carry a lower maximum penalty. Both are prosecuted under the same section.
Will saying "I didn't mean it" be a defence?
Not necessarily on its own. Courts look at whether the words, viewed objectively in their context, would reasonably convey a threat meant to be taken seriously, rather than relying solely on what the person says they meant after the fact.