Threats Lawyer in Brampton

In determining what constitutes a “threat”, the Courts will adopt the viewpoint of a reasonable person. In R. v. Evans, [2020] O.J. No. 244, the Court affirmed the Supreme Court of Canada’s reasoning in R. v. McRae, 2013 SCC 68: “To conclude on this point, the prohibited act of the offence of Uttering Threats will be made out if a reasonable person fully aware of the circumstances in which the words were uttered or conveyed would have perceived them to be a threat of death or bodily harm.”

This means that even if the recipient of the threat doesn’t subjectively take the threat seriously, or even if they don’t understand it as a threat, one can still be charged and convicted under section 264.1(1). Thus, the Crown “need not prove that the intended recipient of the threat … [were] made aware of it, or if aware of it, that he or she was intimidated by it or took it seriously.”

In terms of the mental element required for this offence, one does not need to actually intend to carry out the threat, or even intend that the recipient actually hears/receives the threat. The mens rea of Uttering Threats is simply an intention that the threat be taken seriously, or an intention to intimidate the recipient. The Crown does not need to prove both intentions to satisfy the mental element; either one will suffice. In R. v. Evans, [2020] O.J. No. 244, the Respondent had gotten out of a relationship, then had a motor-vehicle accident with his ex-partner. As a result of that accident, the Respondent faced a number of driving-related charges, and suffered considerable injuries requiring medical attention. He was heard by a surety threatening to kill his ex-partner. However, given the circumstances, and the testimony of the surety, it was found that the Respondent did not actually intend for those threats to be taken seriously; rather, he was just “blowing off steam” after a particularly rough patch. Thus, the Respondent was found not guilty at trial, and this result was upheld on appeal by the Crown.

However, just because threats are made when somebody is angry does not mean they will always be interpreted as “blowing off steam.” It all depends on the specific facts of each case. One crucial element in Evans was the fact that the ex-partner was not around to hear the threat. If she had, it might have been inferred that the accused had intended for her to hear it, and thus intended for her to take it seriously. In R. v. Berhane, [2020] O.J. No. 5354, the accused was going through a separation with his partner. He requested some medical information regarding their children, which his partner did not provide him with. This caused a heated argument, during which the accused stated that he was going to kill her and chop her up into little pieces. The accused argued that his ex-partner was not actually intimidated by this threat. However, he was still found guilty, as it was not the Crown’s burden to prove actual intimidation; it was sufficient that he only intended to intimidate her.