R v H.

Our client was charged with uttering threats at a Canadian airport, a serious allegation with potentially severe consequences. Upon receiving and reviewing disclosure, we immediately identified significant weaknesses in the Crown’s case. Most notably, the evidence made clear that our client did not possess the requisite intent (mens rea) to be convicted of the offence.

Canadian courts have consistently held that not every angry or emotional remark constitutes a criminal threat. In R v Jama, 2017 ONCJ 441, the Court emphasized that threats made during a heated outburst are not always to be taken at face value (para 19). Likewise, in R v I.B.R., [1998] BCJ No 2986, the court found that the accused’s comments amounted to nothing more than venting and did not reflect a genuine intent to threaten.

We raised these legal authorities with the Crown and highlighted how our client’s comments, though perhaps ill-advised, clearly fell into the category of emotional venting rather than a true threat. After careful consideration, the Crown agreed that our client’s words were not meant to be taken seriously and withdrew the charge in its entirety. Our client walked away without a conviction and with their record intact.