Uttering threats is charged under section 264.1 of the Criminal Code and covers knowingly threatening to cause death, bodily harm, or damage to property or an animal. The Crown — not the complainant — controls whether the charge proceeds, is withdrawn, or is resolved through a peace bond or diversion. A complainant asking to drop the charge is a factor the Crown may consider, but it is never determinative on its own.
- Uttering threats is charged under section 264.1 of the Criminal Code.
- It covers knowingly uttering, conveying, or causing a threat of death, bodily harm, or property/animal damage.
- The charge is hybrid, so the Crown chooses to proceed summarily or by indictment.
- Only the Crown — not the complainant — controls whether a threats charge is withdrawn, reduced, or proceeds to trial.
- A peace bond or diversion program are common resolutions, particularly for a first offence without an underlying pattern of violence.
- The threat does not need to be carried out, or even capable of being carried out, to support a conviction.
What Is Uttering Threats?
Uttering threats is charged under section 264.1 of the Criminal Code. It covers knowingly uttering, conveying, or causing any person to receive a threat to cause death or bodily harm to someone, to burn, destroy, or damage property, or to kill, poison, or injure an animal belonging to someone. It is a hybrid offence, meaning the Crown can proceed either summarily or by indictment.
These charges often arise out of heated personal disputes — between partners, neighbours, coworkers, or family members — where a statement made in anger is reported to police.
What the Crown Must Prove
To secure a conviction, the Crown generally must establish:
- That a threatening statement was made, conveyed, or caused to be received
- That it threatened death, bodily harm, or damage to property or an animal
- That the accused acted knowingly — intending the words to be taken seriously as a threat, viewed objectively in context
A conviction does not require that the threat was actually carried out, or even that it was realistically capable of being carried out. The focus is on whether a reasonable person would view the statement as a genuine threat meant to be taken seriously.
Who Actually Controls This Charge
A common misconception is that the person who reported a threat can simply ask to have the charge dropped and that will be the end of it. In Canada, criminal charges are treated as a matter of public interest, prosecuted by the Crown on behalf of the public — not a private dispute between the complainant and the accused.
The Crown decides whether to proceed, withdraw, or resolve a threats charge another way. A complainant’s wishes are a factor the Crown may weigh, but they are never determinative on their own — the Crown can, and sometimes does, proceed even where a complainant wants the matter dropped.
Peace Bonds as a Resolution
A peace bond — typically under section 810 of the Criminal Code — is a common, non-conviction way to resolve an uttering threats charge. The person agrees to keep the peace and follow specific conditions, such as having no contact with the complainant, for a set period. In exchange, the Crown often agrees to withdraw the underlying charge. A peace bond does not require a guilty plea and does not result in a criminal conviction.
For more detail on how peace bonds work generally, see our guide on peace bonds in Ontario.
Diversion and Alternative Measures
For a first offence without an underlying pattern of violence, diversion or an alternative measures program may be available. This generally involves completing specific conditions — such as counselling or community service — in exchange for the Crown withdrawing the charge, avoiding a criminal record entirely where it is offered and successfully completed.
During a heated argument, a person says something that is reported to police as a threat. If there is no prior record and no underlying pattern of violence, counsel may be able to negotiate a peace bond or diversion with the Crown, resolving the matter without a conviction.
Defending an Uttering Threats Charge
Common defences and strategies include:
- Arguing the statement was not genuinely intended as a threat — made in obvious jest, hyperbole, or anger without real intent
- Disputing exactly what was said and the context it was said in
- Challenging whether the Crown can prove the required knowledge and intent
- Pursuing a peace bond or diversion where appropriate, rather than contesting the charge at trial
Facing an uttering threats charge in Toronto or anywhere in Ontario? Call our Toronto criminal defence lawyers at 416-274-2222 for a free consultation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Uttering threats is charged under section 264.1 of the Criminal Code. It covers 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 property, or to kill, poison, or injure an animal belonging to any person.
Not automatically. In Canada, the Crown — not the complainant — decides whether a criminal charge proceeds, is withdrawn, or is resolved another way. A complainant's wishes are something the Crown may consider, but they are never the deciding factor on their own, since criminal charges are treated as a matter of public interest, not a private dispute.
No. The offence focuses on the act of knowingly making the threat, not on whether it was ever carried out, or even whether it was realistically capable of being carried out. The focus is on whether the statement was intended to be taken seriously as a threat.
A peace bond, generally under section 810 of the Criminal Code, is an agreement to keep the peace and follow specific conditions for a set period, without a guilty plea or criminal conviction. In exchange, the Crown often agrees to withdraw the underlying charge. It is a common, non-conviction way to resolve uttering threats charges where the Crown views it as an appropriate outcome.
In some cases, particularly for a first offence without an underlying pattern of violence or a prior record, diversion or an alternative measures program may be available, allowing the person to complete specific conditions in exchange for the charge being withdrawn.
It is a hybrid offence, so the Crown can proceed either summarily or by indictment. An indictable election generally reflects a more serious view of the circumstances and carries higher potential exposure.
Common defences include arguing the statement was not genuinely intended as a threat (such as being made in jest, in anger without real intent, or clearly hyperbolic in context), disputing what was actually said, and challenging whether the Crown can prove the required knowledge and intent.