Criminal harassment under section 264 of the Criminal Code covers repeated following, repeated communication, watching or besetting a home or workplace, and threatening conduct. The Crown does not have to prove an intention to frighten anyone, only that the accused knew or ought to have known the conduct would cause the complainant to fear for their safety. It is a hybrid offence carrying up to two years less a day on summary election and up to ten years on indictment, with bail conditions and collateral consequences that begin at arrest.

Criminal Harassment

Criminal harassment is one of those charges that catches people off guard. Most individuals facing an allegation under section 264 of the Criminal Code did not wake up that morning expecting police contact, let alone an arrest. Yet the moment a complaint is made, a chain of legal consequences begins to build, and those consequences do not pause to wait for a trial date. For many accused persons in Toronto and the GTA, the real damage starts long before a judge ever weighs the evidence.

What makes this offence particularly disruptive is the gap between how the public perceives harassment and how the law defines it. Conduct that feels routine to one person, such as repeated phone calls after a breakup, showing up at a shared social event, or sending multiple text messages, can meet the legal threshold for criminal harassment if the Crown establishes that the complainant feared for their safety. That disconnect between intent and legal consequence is exactly where a criminal defence lawyer in Toronto makes the greatest difference.

The Legal Framework Behind Section 264

Section 264 sets out four categories of prohibited conduct: repeatedly following someone, repeatedly communicating with someone, watching or besetting a person’s home or workplace, and engaging in threatening conduct directed at someone or a member of their family (Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 264(2)). The Crown does not need to prove that the accused intended to cause fear. It only needs to show that the accused knew, or was reckless or wilfully blind as to whether, the complainant was harassed, and that the conduct caused the complainant to reasonably fear for their safety (R v Sillipp, 1997 ABCA 346).

This is a critical distinction. A person charged with criminal harassment may genuinely believe their behaviour was harmless or even well intentioned. The legal test, however, centres on the complainant’s perception and whether that fear was reasonable in the circumstances. Courts in Ontario have upheld convictions where the accused had no subjective desire to intimidate or frighten anyone, and appellate courts have confirmed that the provision withstands constitutional scrutiny (R v Krushel (2000), 142 CCC (3d) 1 (Ont CA)). That is precisely why retaining a criminal defence lawyer in Toronto from the outset matters so much.

The offence is a hybrid offence, meaning the Crown can elect to proceed by summary conviction or by indictment. Summary proceedings carry a maximum of two years less a day in custody. Indictable proceedings raise that ceiling to ten years (Criminal Code, s 264(3)). The Crown’s election often depends on the nature of the alleged conduct, the relationship between the parties, and whether the accused has a prior record. Counsel who steps in early can sometimes influence the framing of the case before those decisions are locked in.

Immediate Consequences That Begin at Arrest

One of the most overlooked aspects of a criminal harassment charge is the speed at which life changes after arrest. In Toronto, an accused person taken into custody on a section 264 allegation will typically face a bail hearing within 24 hours. At that hearing, the Crown commonly seeks strict release conditions, and the Supreme Court has emphasised that release on the least onerous terms remains the default rather than the exception (R v Antic, 2017 SCC 27).

Conditions sought in these cases often include:

• A no contact order covering the complainant and sometimes their family
• A requirement to stay away from the complainant’s residence, workplace, and school
• Surrender of electronic devices or restrictions on social media use
• A curfew, a residence condition, or a surety

For people who share a residence with the complainant, this can mean being locked out of their own home with no advance notice. For parents, it can mean losing daily access to their children. For professionals, it can mean disclosing the charge to a licensing body or employer. None of these consequences requires a conviction. They flow directly from the arrest and the bail order, and they can remain in place for months while the case works its way through the Ontario court system.

Breaching a bail condition is a separate criminal offence (Criminal Code, s 145(4)–(5)). A single message to the complainant, even one sent out of habit or to discuss a shared financial obligation, can result in a new arrest and a much harder path to release the second time around, although the Crown must still prove that the accused knowingly or recklessly failed to comply (R v Zora, 2020 SCC 14). Defence counsel plays a vital role in negotiating bail terms that are realistic and workable, rather than conditions that set the accused up for a breach.

Long Term Fallout That Outlasts the Case

Even where a criminal harassment charge is eventually resolved, whether through withdrawal, a peace bond under section 810, or acquittal, the ripple effects can persist. A charge that appears on a police background check, even without a conviction, can complicate applications in fields that require vulnerable sector screening. Teachers, nurses, social workers, financial advisors, and anyone working with children or elderly populations may face professional consequences from the allegation alone.

For non citizens, the stakes climb considerably higher. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, ss 36 and 44 allow charges and convictions to factor into admissibility assessments and reports to the Immigration Division. A permanent resident facing a criminal harassment charge could find their status placed under review. A foreign national awaiting a work permit renewal could see their application stalled or refused. These immigration consequences are difficult to reverse after the fact, which makes a proactive legal strategy essential from the earliest possible stage.

Travel restrictions add another layer of disruption. United States border officers exercise broad discretion and frequently deny entry to individuals with pending Canadian criminal charges. Business travellers, families with cross border commitments, and anyone who relies on the ability to move freely across the border may find that a single unresolved charge reshapes daily life in ways they never anticipated.

Frequently Asked Questions

The pattern across all of these consequences is the same. The longer a charge remains unaddressed, the deeper it embeds itself into a person’s professional, personal, and financial life. A criminal defence lawyer in Toronto who handles harassment allegations regularly will recognise which pressure points need attention first and build a strategy that accounts for the full scope of the disruption, not only the courtroom outcome.

If you are facing a criminal harassment allegation in Toronto or the GTA, the window to protect your interests is smaller than most people expect. John Erickson at Erickson Law has spent more than two decades defending individuals against serious criminal charges across southern Ontario, and his team provides 24 hour emergency contact at (416) 363-3612.

Legislation and Jurisprudence

• Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, ss 145, 264, 810.
• Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, ss 36, 44.
• R v Antic, 2017 SCC 27.
• R v Krushel (2000), 142 CCC (3d) 1 (Ont CA).
• R v Sillipp, 1997 ABCA 346.
• R v Zora, 2020 SCC 14.