You are here: / Uttering a Threat
  • Vancouver at night

Uttering a Threat

The Charge

Section 264.1 of the Criminal Code sets out that everyone who knowingly utters a threat to another person to cause death or bodily harm, or to damage or destroy property, is guilty of an offence. The essence of the offence is that the prosecutor must prove that the accused intended their remarks to genuinely cause the complainant to intimidate or to be taken seriously. There is no requirement that the intended victim be aware of the threat; the offence is made out upon proof that the accused intended the words to cause fear or alarm. In determining whether or not the accused’s statements are a threat, the words must be viewed objectively in the context in which they were spoken. The words must have been uttered with an intent to intimidate or to be taken seriously.

Uttering a threat is a hybrid offence meaning that the Crown has the option of proceeding by indictment and to seek a sentence of up to five years in jail. Alternatively, the Crown can proceed summarily, in which case the maximum sentence is two years less a day. There are no mandatory minimum sentence requirements for uttering threats. Non-custodial sentences are available.

The Investigation

Unlike many other criminal investigations, in threatening charges, the substantive evidence usually comes not from the police, but from the complainant who says you threatened them. Upon receiving the complaint, police will seek out the suspect and attempt to obtain their side of the story.

When contacted by a suspect prior to their arrest, we can be of significant assistance. We will make enquiries to determine who the investigating officer is. Because of the laws concerning solicitor/client privilege, we can act as a “buffer” between our client and police. We can speak on our client’s behalf without risk of creating incriminating evidence against them. We will negotiate to have our client not charged, or if charged, to be released from custody quickly and on the least restrictive terms that are appropriate. Typical release conditions include no contact with the complainant, including face-to-face contact, or indirect contact by phone, text, email or through a third party. Other conditions may include no weapons, no alcohol or other similar protective conditions.

Recent Successes

R. v. Q.C. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charge: Insurance fraud over $5000 investigation.
Issue: Given our client's rehabilitation and repayment of disputed funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the Insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charhges were forwarded. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.K. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; assault with a weapon; breach of undertaking (x2); attempting to take weapon from police.
Issue: Whether our client's personal circumstances and positive rehabilitative steps made him a good candidate for a conditional discharge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed only on the common assault charge and to stay proceedings on the remaining four criminal charges. After hearing Mr. Mines'submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge and placed him on probation for 12 months. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. A.S. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Fraud Over $5,000 (x4); Theft Over $5,000 (x4).
Issue: Given that full restitution was made and that our client had taken significant steps toward self-rehabilitation, whether jail was the appropriate sentence for this $240,000 employee fraud.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to facilitate the restitution payment and provided medical information to Crown counsel on our client's behalf. Ultimately Mr. Mines persuaded Crown to  jointly  recommend a non-custodial sentence. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, our client was granted a 2 year less a day conditional senntence.. No jail.

R. vs. R.B. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault Causing Bodily Harm (reduced to assault).
Issue: Whether the caselaw supported our client receiving a conditional discharge for this domestic assault case in which the coplainant sustained a significant injury.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide Crown counsel with information about our client and a number of case authorities which resulted in Crown agreeing to proceed on assault simpliciter  and to make a joint recommendation for a conditional discharge, which was accepted by the court.

R. vs. D.T. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault causing bodily harm.
Issue: Given the parallel civil claim and the issue of  self defence, whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information about our client's circumstances and the circumstances of the incident which caused Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. P.G. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; Assault by Choking.
Issue: Whether our client was acting in self defence and whether he used excessive force.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to guide our client through a course of self rehabilitation and to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser charge of simple assault. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge and declined to make the restitution order sought by the complainant. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. C.C. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charges: Fraud Over $5,000 Investigation.
Issue: Given that we were able to negotiate a civil settlement of this $6,000 insurance claim overpayment, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to negotiate a settlement of the alleged fraudulent claim. We obtained a full Release, ending the matter. No further liability. No criminal charges were forwarded.

R. vs. S.R. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual assault; assault.
Issue: Whether the trial judge would allow Mr. Mines' application to cross examine the complainant on prior records (text messages) that impacted her credibility and reliability.
Result: The trial judge allowed our application in part, and ruled that the remaining issues could be renewed at at further point in the trial. Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings after the conclusion of our application. No further prosection. No jail. no criminal record.

R. vs. A.J. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charges: Fraud Over $5,000 Investigation.
Issue: Given that we were able to negotiate a civil settlement of this $13,000 insurance claim overpayment, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate a settlement of the alleged fraudulent claim. We obtained a full Release, ending the matter in both the civil and criminal context. No further liability. No criminal charges.

R. vs. M.M. – New Westminster Police Investigation

Charge: Sexual Assault Investigation.
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence for police to recommend that criminal charges be approved.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to guide our client through the police investigation, and to provide police with information on our client's behalf. Ultimately, police decided not to forward any charge to Crow. No charges approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.T. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charges: Fraud Under $5,000
Issue: Given our client's repayment of the alleged fraudulent health insurance benefits, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to settle the matter civilly on our client's behalf without any further civil or criminal proceeding. No charges were approved.

R. vs. A.S. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (domestic) Reduced to Peace Bond.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to continue with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through a course of rehabilitation and persuaded Crown to stay the assault charge and to allow our client to enter into a Peace Bond.
View All

The Defence

The typical defences to threatening charges is to establish doubt that the words were ever uttered or, alternatively, that the words uttered were not intended to be taken seriously by the complainant. Clearly, any evidence from third party witnesses or video or audio recordings will be relevant.

As experienced lawyers, we are able to offer significant assistance to clients who contact us before they are contacted by police. We will contact the police investigator and will strive to persuade police to not take you into custody at all or, alternatively, to release you on the least onerous conditions as possible, as quickly as possible. In our more than 25 years of experience, we have been successful in obtaining non-custodial sentences for the majority of our clients charged with uttering threats. We will strive to resolve your threatening charge with alternative measures, a peace bond or a discharge.

Start with a free consultation.

If you are being investigated by police or if you’ve been charged with a criminal or driving offence, don’t face the problem alone. Being accused of an offence is stressful. The prospects of a criminal record or jail sentence can be daunting. Even if you think there is no defence, we may be able to help. To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver lawyers, contact us now.

Connect