Uttering Threats Defences

The short answer

Uttering threats cases often come down to words and context. The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the words were a threat and that you meant them that way. That standard leaves room for several defences, and the right one depends on the exact words, the evidence and the relationship between the people involved. Many cases are won by showing the full picture that the police file left out, such as earlier messages, provocation or the complainant's own words. See our uttering threats page for an overview.

1. The words were not a threat

Read in context, the words may not reasonably be seen as a threat. Examples include an obvious joke, a figure of speech or a warning about legal action. See uttering threats examples.

2. No intent to intimidate

The Crown must prove that you meant to intimidate or to be taken seriously. Evidence that you were venting, that no one took the words seriously, or that you took them back right away can raise a reasonable doubt about intent.

3. The words were not said

Many threats cases rest on one person's account of what was said. The defence can test that account in several ways:

• Pointing to inconsistencies between the person's statements.
• Showing a motive to make up or exaggerate the allegation.
• Calling other witnesses who were present.
• Identifying gaps or problems in the timeline.

4. Messages taken out of context

A single screenshot can look very different from the full conversation. The full exchange may show provocation, sarcasm or a two-sided argument. Keep your complete message history, because it may be the most important evidence in your case.

5. Identity and authorship

For online threats, the Crown must prove that you wrote the message. Shared devices, fake accounts and hacked accounts can all raise a reasonable doubt about who actually sent it.

6. Charter issues

If police searched your phone without proper authority, or breached your right to speak to a lawyer, the evidence may be excluded under the Charter (ss. 8 and 10(b)).

7. Words said in self-defence

Sometimes threatening words are said in response to a threat or an attack, for example when someone warns an aggressor to stay back. Section 34 of the Criminal Code can apply to an act committed to defend yourself or another person from force or a threat of force, as long as the response was reasonable in the circumstances. Whether that defence applies depends on what the other person said or did, the history between you, and whether your words went further than what was reasonably needed to protect yourself.

How a trial works

At trial, the Crown calls its witnesses first, usually starting with the complainant. Your lawyer can cross-examine each witness to test their account. You then decide, with your lawyer, whether to call evidence or testify yourself. The judge decides whether the Crown has proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is any reasonable doubt, you must be acquitted.

Credibility in "he said, she said" cases

When the case depends on two different accounts with no recording, the judge must decide whether the Crown has proven its version beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge does not simply choose which person seems more believable. Even if the judge is not sure whether to believe the accused, the judge must acquit if the evidence as a whole leaves a reasonable doubt.

Resolving without a trial

Not every case goes to trial. Many uttering threats charges end in a withdrawal or a peace bond, especially once the Crown sees the full context. See can an uttering threats charge be dropped?.

What to do now

• Save every message, call log and post connected to the allegation.
• Write down the names of anyone who heard the conversation.
• Do not contact the complainant or ask others to contact them.
• Get legal advice before speaking to police.

Disclosure and what to request

The Crown must give your lawyer all relevant evidence, including police notes, witness statements, recordings and any messages it intends to rely on. In threats cases, the most useful material is often what the disclosure leaves out, such as earlier messages, the complainant's own threats or insults, or statements from people who were present but were never interviewed. Your lawyer can ask the Crown to obtain this material or seek it through other lawful means, and those requests can significantly change how the case looks.

Release conditions during the case

While you prepare your defence, your release conditions will usually prohibit contact with the complainant and possibly with witnesses. You must follow these conditions exactly, because a breach is a separate offence and can damage both your credibility and your chances of a favourable resolution. If a condition makes it difficult to work, see your children or live at home, your lawyer can ask the Crown to agree to a change.

Possible outcomes

Effects beyond the outcome

An acquittal, a withdrawal or a peace bond avoids a criminal conviction, which protects your record for employment, travel and immigration purposes. A conviction, on the other hand, can affect background checks, entry to the United States and, for non-citizens, immigration status. That difference is a major reason to consider every available defence carefully before deciding how to resolve the case.

How we can help

We can review the evidence, collect the full context and decide with you whether to push for a withdrawal or take the case to trial. Call (647) 223-1980 for a free consultation.

Frequently asked questions