Verbal altercations happen every day — during arguments, online disputes, breakups, workplace conflicts, neighbour disagreements, or domestic situations. Most of the time, heated words do not lead to criminal charges. However, in Canada, certain forms of verbal communication can constitute a criminal offence, even when no physical force is used.
While the Criminal Code does not contain an offence called “verbal assault,” threatening words can lead to serious criminal charges under Section 264.1 (Uttering Threats). This offence applies to spoken words, written messages, emails, texts, social media posts, gestures, or any communication that conveys a threat to harm a person, property, or an animal.
Despite the common belief that “talking isn’t a crime,” uttering threats is treated seriously by police and prosecutors — especially in domestic disputes, conflicts involving children, or situations where intimidation or fear may be present. A conviction can result in jail time, probation, a criminal record, and lifelong consequences.
This comprehensive evergreen guide explains:
With decades of experience defending threat-related charges across the GTA, the criminal defence lawyers at Mass Tsang LLP understand how quickly a verbal disagreement can escalate into a criminal case — and how to build strong defences that protect your rights, reputation, and future.
As Managing Partner, Jeff Mass notes:
“People are often shocked to learn that something said in anger — or even a misunderstood text — can lead to criminal charges. What matters is not just the words, but how the law interprets intent, context, and credibility.”
There is no criminal charge called verbal assault . Instead, threatening words can fall under Uttering Threats (Criminal Code s. 264.1).
A person may be charged if they:
A threat to:
The Crown must prove three elements:
Partner Robbie Tsang explains:
“It doesn’t matter if the person had no actual plan to carry out the threat — what matters is whether the words conveyed real intimidation in context.”
This includes statements like:
Courts interpret both explicit and implied threats.
Examples:
These are often charged during neighbour disputes or domestic conflicts.
Example:
Courts treat threats involving animals as highly aggravating due to emotional vulnerability and power dynamics.
| Type of Threat | Maximum Penalty (Indictable) | Summary Conviction Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Threats to a person | Up to 5 years in prison | Up to 2 years less a day |
| Threats to property | Up to 2 years in prison | Up to 2 years less a day |
| Threats to animals | Up to 2 years in prison | Up to 2 years less a day |
Sentences may also include:
Crown prosecutors may seek harsher sentences when threats involve:
Lawyer Brian Brody adds:
“Context matters. Threats uttered during heated moments are treated differently from calculated threats intended to intimidate. But domestic threats are almost always prosecuted aggressively.”
Ontario police take threat allegations seriously, often laying charges with:
This is especially common in:
Police may also lay charges based on:
| Type of Evidence | Description |
|---|---|
| Witness testimony | Complainant’s statement is often the primary evidence |
| Digital messages | Texts, social media, emails, screenshots |
| Voicemails/recordings | Audio threats, tone of voice |
| Police notes and observations | Emotional states, intoxication, context |
| Third-party witnesses | Neighbours, co-workers, family members |
| Contextual evidence | History of conflict, previous threats |
In many cases, the Crown proceeds without physical evidence, relying solely on statements.
Mass Tsang LLP frequently challenges these cases on:
The accused may not have intended the words as a real threat:
The Crown must prove intent , not just the words.
Courts evaluate:
Defence lawyers examine:
Digital messages may lack tone or context:
Evidence may be excluded if police:
In many cases, the complainant’s statement alone is not enough for a conviction.
| Prosecution Focus | Defence Counterarguments |
|---|---|
| Words were a real threat | Words lacked intent or seriousness |
| Complainant felt fear | Fear must be reasonable in context |
| The threat was communicated knowingly | Miscommunication, emotional moment |
| Digital messages support the threat | Messages are incomplete, exaggerated, and misleading |
| History of conflict | Complainant bias or motive |
Charges may be withdrawn when:
Peace bonds under s. 810 is a common resolution.
Our criminal defence assault lawyers focus on:
Mass Tsang LLP has successfully defended hundreds of GTA clients charged with uttering threats, including complex domestic and digital communication cases.
There is no offence called verbal assault in Canada, but uttering threats is a criminal offence under Section 264.1 of the Criminal Code.
Yes. If words are interpreted as genuine threats, charges may be laid even if no physical contact occurred.
Yes. Police and prosecutors frequently use digital communications — texts, emails, social media messages — in uttering threats cases
Charges may be withdrawn when evidence is weak, intent cannot be proven, credibility issues arise, or a peace bond under Section 810 is appropriate.
