Understanding Hoax Terrorism in Canada

Hoax terrorism in Canada is a serious criminal offence that targets false information or staged acts that make people reasonably believe a terrorist attack is happening or about to happen. Under Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Code 3717 and section 83.231 of the Criminal Code, this hybrid offence can be prosecuted either summarily or by indictment, depending on how serious the hoax is and what consequences it causes. Hoax terrorism Canada laws aim to protect the public from fear, panic, and disruption, and to prevent the unnecessary deployment of police, bomb squads, and other emergency services.

The Legal Definition

Every one commits an offence who, without lawful excuse and with intent to cause any person to fear death, bodily harm, substantial damage to property or serious interference with the lawful use or operation of property,

(a) conveys or causes or procures to be conveyed information that, in all the circumstances, is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension that terrorist activity is occurring or will occur, without believing the information to be true; or

(b) commits an act that, in all the circumstances, is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension that terrorist activity is occurring or will occur.

This definition, found in section 83.231 of the Criminal Code of Canada, captures two main ways someone can commit hoax terrorism: by spreading false information or by doing some act that looks like a real terrorist threat. The key is not whether an actual terrorist act occurred (it did not), but whether a reasonable person in the circumstances would think a terrorist attack is happening or imminent.

The offence requires several specific elements. First, the person must act “without lawful excuse”, meaning there is no legitimate legal justification (such as certain authorized training exercises or police operations). Second, they must have the intent to cause fear of death, bodily harm, major property damage, or serious interference with the use or operation of property. Third, in the information-based version of the offence, the person must either know or be reckless as to the fact that the information is not true—they do not believe it to be true. All of this must be viewed against the standard of what is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension of terrorist activity, not merely a subjective fear in one overly sensitive person.

Penalties & Sentencing Framework

• Mandatory minimum penalty: None.
• Basic hoax terrorism offence (no bodily harm):
  • Indictable: Maximum 5 years imprisonment.
  • Summary conviction: Punishable on summary conviction (generally up to 2 years less a day imprisonment and/or up to a $5,000 fine under summary rules).
• Hoax terrorism causing bodily harm:
  • Indictable: Maximum 10 years imprisonment.
  • Summary conviction: Punishable on summary conviction (no specific minimum, court applies general summary maximums unless otherwise provided).
• Hoax terrorism causing death:
  • Indictable: Maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Hoax terrorism is a hybrid offence. This means the Crown prosecutor can choose to proceed either by indictment or by summary conviction. That choice significantly affects the potential sentence. Indictable proceedings are reserved for more serious cases—for example, large-scale hoaxes that shut down airports or transit systems, cause significant economic disruption, or are linked to bodily harm or death. Summary conviction is more likely for less extensive hoaxes, first-time offenders, or situations where the impact was limited.

There is no mandatory minimum sentence under section 83.231. Courts therefore have discretion to impose penalties tailored to the circumstances. Sentencing judges will consider the offender’s degree of planning, the scope and duration of the hoax, the level of fear created, the cost and diversion of emergency resources, any physical or psychological harm, and whether the hoax interfered with critical infrastructure or widespread public services. An offender with no prior record who participates in a minor hoax may receive a fine, probation, or a short custodial term, while a serious, deliberate hoax that triggers mass evacuations or injuries can result in substantial jail time.

Where bodily harm or death occurs as a result of the hoax—such as a person being injured in a panicked evacuation or a medical emergency worsened by delayed access—section 83.231 provides higher maximum sentences. Causing bodily harm raises the maximum to 10 years’ imprisonment on indictment, while causing death carries a potential life sentence. In these aggravated forms, courts weigh not only the fear and disruption caused, but also the direct consequences to victims. The more foreseeable and serious those consequences, the more severe the sentence is likely to be.

Common Defenses

• Lawful excuse

  The offence explicitly requires that the act be committed “without lawful excuse.” A lawful excuse functions as a built-in defence. Examples might include legitimate activities by police, military, or security agencies during authorized training exercises, investigations, or controlled operations, where realistic terrorist scenarios are created for operational reasons and proper authorization exists. If the defence can show there was a valid legal justification—such as acting under a lawful order, statutory authority, or properly sanctioned exercise—the “without lawful excuse” element of section 83.231 is not met, and the accused should be acquitted. This defence focuses on the lawfulness of the context in which the act or information was conveyed.

• Lack of intent

  Section 83.231 requires that the accused act with intent to cause fear of death, bodily harm, substantial property damage, or serious interference with property use. If the Crown cannot prove this specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt, the offence is not made out. For example, a person might share poorly worded or misunderstood information about a potential threat without any desire to frighten others; they may be negligent, careless, or even reckless in how they communicate, but if they did not intend to cause fear of terrorist activity, the required mental element is missing. The defence may present evidence of the accused’s state of mind, context of communication, or lack of understanding of how others would perceive the message, to show there was no deliberate effort to induce terror or panic.

• Reasonable belief in truth

  For the information-based branch of hoax terrorism (paragraph 83.231(a)), the Crown must prove that the accused conveyed information that they did not believe to be true. A powerful defence is to show that the accused had a reasonable belief that the information was accurate at the time. For example, someone reporting a suspected bomb threat they honestly and reasonably believed to exist—even if it later turns out to be false—is not guilty of hoax terrorism. The law targets deliberate or knowingly false communications that mimic terrorist threats, not good-faith reports. The court will consider what the accused knew, what a reasonable person would have believed in the same circumstances, and whether the accused took reasonable steps to verify the information before sharing it with others or authorities.

Real-World Example

Imagine a person calls the police claiming there is a bomb in a busy public building, such as a shopping mall or courthouse, causing mass evacuation and panic, even though no bomb exists and the caller knows that. Under hoax terrorism Canada law, this scenario fits squarely within section 83.231. The caller has conveyed information likely to cause a reasonable apprehension that a terrorist activity—detonation of an explosive device—will occur. They have done so without believing the information to be true and, assuming there is no lawful excuse and their aim is to cause fear and disruption, with the necessary intent.

Police would respond as if a genuine terrorist threat might exist: cordoning off the area, evacuating the building, deploying specialized units, and potentially shutting down surrounding streets or transit routes. Even if, after investigation, no device is found, the hoax has already consumed significant emergency resources and caused fear, inconvenience, and possibly injuries during the evacuation. Prosecutors may charge the caller under section 83.231 as a hybrid offence, deciding whether to proceed summarily or by indictment depending on factors like the scale of the response, any resulting harm, and the caller’s criminal history. If, for example, someone suffered a heart attack during the evacuation or was seriously injured in the rush to exit, the Crown could argue that the offence caused bodily harm, exposing the offender to the higher 10-year maximum on indictment.

Record Suspensions (Pardons)

Because hoax terrorism is a criminal offence under the Criminal Code, a conviction will appear on the individual’s criminal record and can affect employment, travel, immigration status, and other aspects of life. However, in appropriate cases, a person may later apply to the Parole Board of Canada for a record suspension (formerly known as a pardon). For a hoax terrorism conviction prosecuted as a summary offence, the waiting period is typically 5 years after the completion of the sentence, including any probation and payment of fines. For a conviction prosecuted as an indictable offence, the standard waiting period is usually 10 years after the entire sentence has been served.

A record suspension is not automatic. The applicant must demonstrate good conduct and compliance with all sentencing conditions, and the Parole Board will assess whether granting the suspension would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Given that hoax terrorism involves public safety, fear, and the misuse of emergency resources, the seriousness of the underlying conduct and any pattern of similar behaviour will be closely examined. Successfully obtaining a record suspension does not erase the fact of the conviction, but, if granted, it separates that record from publicly accessible criminal record checks in most circumstances, offering the person a better chance at rehabilitation and reintegration.

Related Violations

• Public Mischief
• False Information
• Criminal Harassment