R. v. McRae – Threats & Criminal Intent

R. v. McRae – Words & Criminal Threats

How Context Can Affect Threat Allegations in Domestic Assault Cases

As domestic assault lawyers, we often deal with cases where one person is accused of threatening their partner during an argument. R. v. McRae explains that the court should not look at the words alone. The judge must consider what was said and the circumstances in which it was said.

In a domestic assault case, words that may seem unclear or harmless on their own can sometimes amount to a criminal threat when the surrounding circumstances are considered. The Crown must also prove that the accused intended the words to intimidate or to be taken seriously.

For more than 25 years, Nicholas Charitsis has represented people charged with criminal offences throughout Toronto and the GTA. As a former Crown Attorney, he understands how allegations involving domestic assault and threats are prosecuted and how the evidence can be challenged. Charitsis Law has earned more than 350 five-star Google reviews.

If you’ve been charged with domestic assault or uttering threats, call Nicholas Charitsis at 416-731-7113. Let’s talk about what happened and how we can help you.

What Happened in R. v. McRae?

Mr. McRae was in jail waiting for trial on serious drug charges. While in custody, he became angry with the people involved in the case against him, including the Crown prosecutor, a police investigator and several witnesses.

He spoke to other inmates about getting revenge. He made statements about killing or seriously harming some of the people involved in his prosecution. Some of the statements sounded threatening when heard on their own. Others were less clear and could have been understood differently depending on the circumstances.

Mr. McRae was charged with uttering threats. At trial, the judge found him not guilty. The judge looked closely at the actual words he had used and concluded that some of the statements did not amount to criminal threats.

The case eventually reached the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court found that the trial judge had taken too narrow an approach. A judge cannot simply take a few words out of a conversation and decide what they mean on their own.

The words must be considered together with the surrounding circumstances. Who said them, who heard them, what was happening at the time and the events surrounding the conversation can all help determine whether the words were meant as a serious threat.

Relevant Case Law:
R. v. McRae — Supreme Court of Canada (2013 SCC 68, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 931)
View the full decision Supreme Court of Canada (Supreme Court of Canada)

What Did the Supreme Court Say About Criminal Threats?

The Supreme Court explained that a judge must look at more than the exact words used. The question is whether a reasonable person, knowing the circumstances, would understand the words as a threat.

The court may consider:

• The actual words spoken
• The circumstances in which they were said
• The relationship between the people involved
• What happened before and after the statement
• Other words or actions that help explain what the accused meant
• Whether the statement was intended to intimidate or be taken seriously

This means that words that seem unclear when read by themselves may take on a different meaning when the full situation is considered.

Does the Other Person Have to Be Afraid?

No. The Crown does not have to prove that the person was actually frightened by the words. In fact, the threat does not even have to reach the person it was directed at.

However, how someone reacted to the words can still be evidence that helps the court understand what was said and the circumstances surrounding it.

Did the Accused Intend the Words as a Threat?

The Crown must prove that the accused intended the words to intimidate or to be taken seriously.

A careless comment, joke or statement that was never intended to be taken seriously may therefore raise a different issue from a genuine threat.

Ultimately, the Crown must prove the required criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

How Does R. v. McRae Apply to Domestic Assault Charges?

Domestic assault cases often involve more than an allegation of physical violence. Police may also lay an uttering threats charge based on something one partner says during an argument or after an alleged assault.

R. v. McRae is important because the words cannot always be judged on their own. The court must consider the circumstances surrounding the statement and decide what the words meant in that context.

What Can the Court Consider?

In a domestic assault case involving an alleged threat, the circumstances may include:

• What was actually said
• What the couple was arguing about
• What happened before the alleged threat
• The relationship between the accused and the complainant
• Other statements made during the conversation
• The accused’s actions before and after the words were spoken
• How the complainant reacted
• Text messages, emails or other communications that provide context

A statement that looks threatening when written in a police report may have a different meaning when the whole conversation and surrounding circumstances are considered. On the other hand, words that appear unclear on their own may become threatening when the surrounding circumstances are known.

What Does R. v. McRae Mean for Someone Charged Criminally?

If you have been charged with uttering threats during a domestic dispute, the police report may only tell part of the story. As your defence lawyers we’ll look at the entire conversation and what was happening when the words were spoken.

Important evidence may include:

• Text messages before and after the alleged threat
• Emails and social media messages
• Phone records
• Witnesses who heard the conversation
• Video or audio recordings
• What the complainant said or did afterwards
• Earlier conversations that help explain the words
• Your explanation of what you meant

The Crown must prove more than the fact that certain words were spoken. It must prove that the words amounted to a threat when considered in context and that you intended them to intimidate or to be taken seriously.

Every case is different. A criminal lawyer can review the words, the surrounding circumstances and the available evidence to determine whether the Crown can prove an uttering threats charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

Uttering Threats and Domestic Assault Charges

At Charitsis Law, we don’t look at an alleged threat as a few words written in a police report. As criminal lawyers, we look at the entire conversation, the relationship between the people involved and what was happening when the words were spoken.

Depending on the evidence, we may challenge:

• Whether the words actually amounted to a threat
• The meaning of the words when the full conversation is considered
• Whether the accused intended the words to be taken seriously
• Whether the complainant’s version is supported by other evidence
• Statements given to the police
• Text messages, emails and other communications
• Evidence from witnesses who heard the conversation
• Whether the Crown can prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt

In a domestic assault case, an argument can happen quickly and emotions can run high. A few words taken from a longer conversation may not tell the whole story.

As Toronto criminal lawyers, our job is to examine that entire story. We look for evidence that provides context, challenges the Crown’s version of events and helps determine what the accused actually meant when the words were spoken.

R. v. McRae is important because it confirms that context matters. The court must consider the words together with the surrounding circumstances when deciding whether a criminal threat was made.

What R. v. McRae Means for Your Case

R. v. McRae confirms that words cannot always be judged in isolation. When someone is charged with uttering threats, the court must consider the words and the circumstances in which they were spoken.

The important points from McRae include:

• Context matters: The court looks at the whole situation, not just a few words taken from a conversation.
• The meaning of the words matters: Words that seem unclear on their own may have a different meaning when the surrounding circumstances are considered.
• Intent must be proven: The Crown must prove that the accused intended the words to intimidate or to be taken seriously.
• The complainant does not have to be afraid: Their reaction can be evidence, but actual fear is not required for the offence.
• The Crown still has the burden of proof: The required elements of the charge must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

These principles can be particularly important in a domestic assault case where an argument between partners leads to allegations of both assault and threats. At Charitsis Law, we look at the complete conversation, the surrounding circumstances and the available evidence to determine whether the Crown can prove the charge.

Speak With Nicholas Charitsis Today

You’ll speak directly with Nicholas Charitsis—not a call centre or an intake representative.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I Be Charged With Uttering Threats During a Domestic Argument?

Yes. A person can be charged with uttering threats based on words spoken during an argument with a spouse or partner. The Crown must still prove that the words amounted to a threat and that you intended them to intimidate or to be taken seriously.

The court does not simply look at one sentence. Under R. v. McRae, the words must be considered in the circumstances in which they were spoken. This can make the rest of the conversation and what was happening at the time important to your defence.

What if I Said Something in Anger but Did Not Mean It?

The fact that something was said during an angry argument does not automatically make it a criminal threat. The Crown must prove the required criminal intent.

R. v. McRae confirms that the Crown must prove that you intended your words to intimidate or to be taken seriously. As criminal defence lawyers, we look at the entire conversation and the surrounding circumstances to determine what the words meant and whether the Crown can prove that intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

Can Text Messages Be Used to Defend an Uttering Threats Charge?

Text messages and other communications may provide important context. A police report may contain only the words the complainant says were threatening. Earlier or later messages may help show what the conversation was actually about.

At Charitsis Law, we may review texts, emails, social media messages, phone records and other available evidence. Because McRae requires the alleged threat to be considered in context, evidence showing the surrounding conversation may be important when fighting the charge.

What if My Partner Says They Were Never Afraid of Me?

That can be relevant evidence, but it does not automatically end an uttering threats charge. The Supreme Court confirmed that the Crown does not have to prove that the person receiving the threat was actually frightened. A threat does not even have to reach the intended person.

However, how the complainant reacted can still be part of the evidence considered by the court. As your lawyers, we would look at that evidence together with the words used, the surrounding circumstances and the other evidence in the case.

Can I Be Charged With Both Domestic Assault and Uttering Threats?

Yes. A domestic dispute can result in more than one criminal charge. Police may allege that an assault occurred and that threatening words were spoken during or after the incident.

The charges still have to be proven. An assault allegation and an uttering threats allegation involve different legal issues and evidence. At Charitsis Law, we examine each allegation separately, while also looking at how the evidence fits together. For an alleged threat, McRae tells us that the words, their context and the accused’s intent are important when deciding whether the Crown can prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.