Harassment charges rarely begin with a single dramatic event. Usually there is a run of small ones: a breakup, then a stream of texts. A dispute with a former business partner, followed by showing up at his shop on Queen Street. A neighbour who keeps photographing another neighbour’s driveway. To the person doing it, each step may feel justified or even caring. To the person receiving it, each one adds to a growing fear.
Section 264 of the Criminal Code draws the line between those two views. It is an offence with a maximum sentence of 10 years, and its reach has widened to fit how people actually communicate and track one another. People charged are often shocked to learn that no threats need to have been made and no one was touched.
This article offers general information for people accused of criminal harassment and for those trying to understand the charge. It isn’t legal advice. If you’re worried about your safety right now, call 911. If you’ve been charged, read your release conditions before doing anything else, and speak to a lawyer.
The Conduct the Section Covers
The law targets a defined list of conduct, whether it happens in person, by telecommunication or by other means:
- Repeatedly following the person or someone they know from place to place.
- Monitoring the location, movements, actions or social interactions of the person or someone they know.
- Repeatedly communicating with them or someone they know, directly or indirectly.
- Besetting or watching the place where they or someone they know lives, works, does business or happens to be.
- Threatening conduct directed at them, someone they know, or an animal known to them.
Notice that the conduct can target people connected to the complainant. Messaging someone’s sister, boss or new partner can count. So can having a friend carry your messages, because indirect communication is included.
The monitoring category deserves particular attention. It doesn’t use the word “repeatedly.” A hidden GPS tag on a vehicle, spyware or access to someone’s location-sharing account can fit within that language, along with less technical behaviour like keeping tabs on someone’s social media activity in order to track their movements. Whether a specific act crosses the line will depend on all of the circumstances.
The word “repeatedly” itself doesn’t have a fixed number. Courts look at the pattern and the context. Two messages may amount to little. Forty in an evening may be something else. And a lot of conduct that is individually lawful, such as sending a text, can collectively be an offence.
The Test for Safety
Besides the conduct, the Crown must show that, in all the circumstances, it could reasonably be expected to cause the other person to believe that their safety, or the safety of someone known to them, is threatened. This is the heart of the charge.
Parliament changed this part of the law through the Protecting Victims Act, with effect from July 18, 2026. Earlier wording focused on whether the complainant was in fact caused to fear. The current wording asks what the conduct could reasonably be expected to cause. In practice, the Crown may be able to prove its case with less dependence on what the complainant says about their own emotional state. Their fear is still relevant evidence, but the absence of testimony on that point doesn’t end the inquiry. Conduct from before that date would ordinarily be assessed under the law in force at the time, so a case involving a long pattern of behaviour might raise questions about which wording applies to which period. Ask your lawyer about this.
Section 264(6) also says that safety includes psychological safety. A complainant doesn’t need to fear being physically hit. Someone who is reasonably led to believe their mental well-being or sense of security is under threat can be covered. That’s quite a low bar compared with what many accused people picture when they think of a “threat.”
Context is everything here. Suppose, hypothetically, a person sends a message saying “I saw you at the mall on Sunday.” In a friendship, that means nothing. From a former partner who has been told to stop and who has shown up in three other places, it could mean a great deal. A court is entitled to read the words against the history.
What the Accused Must Have Known
There’s a fault requirement as well. The Crown has to prove that you intended to harass, or knew or were reckless as to whether your conduct was harassing the other person. Good intentions don’t give you an automatic way out. “I just wanted to apologize” or “I just needed closure” won’t help if the person had made it clear they wanted the contact to stop and you kept going.
On the other hand, mixed signals, an ongoing relationship, or two-way communication can raise a genuine question about knowledge. If the complainant was replying warmly, setting up meetings, or initiating calls, that context matters. The court looks at it all, and the full message thread may tell a different story from the selected screenshots. That’s why the entire record is important and why you should not delete anything.
Then there is “without lawful authority.” Police officers, process servers and licensed investigators acting within their roles may be engaged in behaviour that would otherwise qualify. A person doing what a court order requires, such as a parent exchanging required information about parenting time, also has a basis to say the contact has a lawful purpose. But that purpose has limits. Using a parenting app to send repeated abuse is not protected merely because the app was set up for the children.
Where These Cases Often Come From
Allegations cluster around certain situations, though every file has its own facts.
After a breakup. These are likely the most common. Family law issues can add difficulties because people must still communicate about children, property and support. If the complainant is seeking an order in family court, a parallel criminal case can affect that case too.
Workplace and business disputes. Repeated visits to someone’s business, or messages sent to their clients, may be charged. A small-business owner who believes they’re owed money should use a demand letter or the courts, not a campaign of calls. Business disputes have proper legal channels, and using them protects you as well.
Neighbours. Cameras pointed at a next-door yard, constant complaints, and watching the house may all be raised. A camera that simply protects your own property is different from one aimed at someone else’s bedroom window.
Online activity. Fake accounts, repeated tagging, or contact with someone’s family members can fall within the section. Some conduct might also be charged as harassing communications under section 372, a separate and generally narrower offence.
What Happens After an Accusation
Peel Regional Police can arrest you on reasonable grounds. In some cases, you may be released at the station with an undertaking. In others, you’ll be held for a bail hearing, particularly if there are safety concerns or prior orders. Expect conditions that forbid contact with the complainant and possibly their family, and that bar you from certain addresses and workplaces. Conditions may also cover possession of weapons.
Those conditions matter as much as the charge. A single reply can lead to a failure to comply charge under section 145, along with a stronger case that the harassment is continuing. Take practical steps straight away:
- Remove the complainant’s number from your favourites and turn off notifications from shared apps and accounts.
- Log out of shared accounts, and don’t check their social media.
- Don’t send messages through friends or family, and tell them not to act as go-betweens.
- Stop using any tracking device or location sharing at once, and ask a lawyer how to deal with the device itself so that evidence is not lost.
- If you share children, ask a lawyer about arranging communication through counsel or a court-approved process.
Charges heard in Brampton go through the Ontario Court of Justice at 7755 Hurontario Street, at least to start with. The charge is hybrid. If the Crown elects to proceed by indictment, you get to choose your mode of trial. Because the maximum is less than 14 years, no preliminary inquiry is available.
Penalties and Related Consequences
By indictment, the maximum is 10 years in prison. On summary conviction, the general maximum of two years less a day and a $5,000 fine applies. Actual sentences vary greatly. Judges look at the length of the behaviour, its effect on the complainant, any threats, and any prior record. Breaching a peace bond or similar order during the conduct must be considered an aggravating factor under section 264(4), and a judge who declines to give it effect must explain why. Harassment of an intimate partner is also an aggravating factor under the general sentencing provisions.
Other consequences can include probation with no-contact terms, a weapons prohibition, and an order to provide a DNA sample in some cases. A finding of guilt in an intimate partner case can also carry weight in family court. Non-citizens should note that because the maximum is 10 years, this offence can raise a question of serious criminality under immigration law, even when the Crown proceeds summarily. A lawyer should look at that before any plea.
A discharge isn’t excluded by law for this offence, since it has no mandatory minimum and its maximum is under 14 years. Whether one is realistic is another question, and it depends on the facts.
Defences That Come Up
These cases are generally argued on the facts and the safety test. The issues that most often arise include:
- Whether the conduct is on the list. Was the communication truly repeated? Was the watching actually watching, or a coincidence at a shared workplace or plaza?
- Identity. Who was behind a fake account? Screenshots alone aren’t always conclusive, and digital evidence needs careful examination.
- Reasonable expectation. Could the conduct, viewed in the full context, reasonably be expected to cause a belief that safety was threatened?
- Knowledge. Did you know, or were you reckless about, the fact that the contact was unwelcome?
- Lawful authority or purpose. Was the contact required by a court order or legal process?
- Credibility and motive. Is there an ongoing family or civil dispute that gives context to the allegation? Courts are careful about this, and an accusation that a complainant is lying for advantage needs to be supported by evidence.
Sometimes the matter resolves through a peace bond under section 810, where the Crown withdraws the charge in return for an agreement to follow conditions for a set period. That isn’t a finding of guilt, but it is a court order with its own consequences. Whether it’s available depends on the Crown, the complainant’s safety concerns and the evidence.
If You Are the One Being Harassed
Some readers will be on the other side of this. Keep every message, voicemail and photo. Write a dated log of each incident, and record who saw what. Tell the person clearly once that you want no more contact, if that is safe to do, and then stop responding. Report the behaviour to Peel Regional Police, and call 911 if you feel in danger. Criminal charges and peace bonds are possible, and family court orders may be available in some cases. Local victim services can also help with safety planning.
Moving Forward If You Are Charged
The most useful thing you can do early on is stop all contact, preserve your records, and let someone with legal training review the entire timeline. A chronology of the relationship, the full message history and any court orders will give your lawyer more to work with than a handful of screenshots. Don’t try to fix things by apologizing to the complainant. However sincere, that message may become Crown evidence.
If you’d like to talk this through, the firm’s criminal law page explains what we do, and you can book a time to speak. Nobody can predict the result of a specific case in advance, but a clear plan makes the coming months much easier to manage.