Short answer: it depends on which Canadian offence your conviction maps to, and the gap between the two most common ones is wide. Criminal harassment under Criminal Code s.264, what most people call stalking, is punishable by a maximum of ten years on indictment. Because IRPA s.36(1)(b) is triggered by a foreign offence that would be punishable in Canada by a maximum term of at least ten years, a criminal harassment equivalent generally lands in serious criminality. Uttering threats under s.264.1 is different: a threat to cause death or bodily harm carries a five-year maximum, and a threat against property or an animal carries a two-year maximum, so both generally fall under criminality in IRPA s.36(2) rather than serious criminality. That one classification decides whether the automatic ten-year deemed rehabilitation route is even available to you. This guide explains the elements of each offence, how foreign convictions are compared to them, and what the published pathways are. An officer always makes the final assessment on the facts of your case, so for advice on your situation consult a licensed Canadian immigration lawyer or a consultant regulated by the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants.
The Two Offences and the Maximums That Drive Everything
Canadian immigration law does not look at the sentence you actually received or at what your offence was called at home. It looks at the maximum penalty attached to the closest Canadian offence. That number is what sorts a conviction into serious criminality under IRPA s.36(1) or ordinary criminality under IRPA s.36(2), and the dividing line is ten years. What this means in practice: a conviction that produced a fine and probation abroad can still be assessed against a ten-year Canadian maximum.
Criminal Harassment (stalking): Criminal Code s.264, ten-year maximum
Section 264 prohibits conduct, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or reckless as to whether they are harassed, that causes that person reasonably in all the circumstances to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them. The listed conduct is repeatedly following, repeatedly communicating, besetting or watching a home or workplace, and threatening conduct. It is a hybrid offence, and on indictment the maximum is ten years. A ten-year maximum meets the "at least 10 years" threshold in IRPA s.36(1), so a criminal harassment equivalent is generally serious criminality.
Uttering Threats of death or bodily harm: Criminal Code s.264.1(1)(a), five-year maximum
Section 264.1 makes it an offence to knowingly utter, convey, or cause a person to receive a threat. For a threat to cause death or bodily harm to any person, the maximum on indictment is five years. Five is under ten, so a single conviction mapping here is generally criminality under IRPA s.36(2) rather than serious criminality, which keeps the deemed rehabilitation route open.
Threats against property or animals: Criminal Code s.264.1(1)(b) and (c), two-year maximum
A threat to burn, destroy, or damage real or personal property, or to kill, poison, or injure an animal or bird that is someone’s property, carries a maximum of two years on indictment. This is the lowest tier of the three. It also generally falls under IRPA s.36(2). It still creates inadmissibility for a foreign national, because s.36(2)(b) turns on whether the equivalent Canadian offence is indictable, not on how long the maximum is.
Whether your foreign conviction maps to criminal harassment, to uttering threats, or to something else entirely depends on the essential elements of the offence you were convicted of. Use the free Criminal Equivalency tool to see how the comparison works, and the Admissibility Explorer to see which IRPA grounds are in play.
Both offences are hybrid in Canada, meaning the Crown may proceed by summary conviction or by indictment. For immigration purposes IRPA s.36(3)(a) settles what that means: an offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by indictment "is deemed to be an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summarily." So the availability of a summary route in your case does not lower the maximum used in the assessment. Section 264(4) also directs a Canadian court to treat a breach of a protective order or recognizance as an aggravating factor on sentence, which is one reason harassment convictions often come with a longer paper trail than the charge alone suggests.
How Foreign Stalking and Threat Convictions Are Assessed
Canada does not recognize foreign offence labels. Under IRPA s.36(1)(b) and s.36(2)(b), the question is what the conduct would have been if it had been committed in Canada, which means an officer compares the essential elements of the offence you were convicted of against the closest Criminal Code offence. Names travel badly across borders, so this comparison is where the outcome is actually decided:
- ✓ A conviction called "stalking" abroad often maps to criminal harassment (s.264) if the elements include a course of conduct causing the complainant to reasonably fear for their safety, which would place it in serious criminality
- ✓ A conviction called "harassment" abroad may map to s.264, or to a lesser offence, depending on whether the reasonable-fear element and the listed conduct are part of what the prosecution had to prove
- ✓ Charges described as "criminal threats", "menacing", or "intimidation" often map to uttering threats (s.264.1), where the tier depends on whether the threat was to a person, to property, or to an animal
- ✓ A conviction that combined threats with physical contact may map to an assault offence instead, where the maximums run from five years under s.266 to fourteen years under s.268
- ✓ Where more than one Canadian offence could apply, the most serious equivalent tends to drive the classification, and an officer decides that case by case
Two practical consequences follow. First, obtaining the actual statute you were convicted under, plus the court record, matters more than the label on the disposition, because the comparison is element by element. Second, the officer performs the equivalency assessment. It is the kind of analysis a licensed representative is trained to prepare.
Assault and domestic violence convictionsIf It Maps to Uttering Threats: Criminality Under IRPA s.36(2)
A conviction whose Canadian equivalent carries a maximum under ten years, which covers both tiers of uttering threats, is generally assessed as criminality under IRPA s.36(2). That is the more favourable classification, and it opens the widest set of pathways:
- ✓ Deemed Rehabilitation: with a single conviction whose Canadian equivalent carries a maximum of less than ten years, and at least ten years since you completed your entire sentence including probation, fines, and conditions, you may be deemed rehabilitated automatically under IRPA s.36(3)(c) and IRPR s.18, with no application and no fee. A separate class covers two or more non-serious summary-equivalent offences after five years where no conviction is indictable
- ✓ Criminal Rehabilitation: you can apply once at least five years have passed since you completed your entire sentence. For non-serious criminality the IRCC processing fee is the lower tier (verified at $246.25 as of December 1, 2025, but always confirm the current fee on IRCC). Once approved, the inadmissibility is permanently resolved
- ✓ Temporary Resident Permit (TRP): available at any time for travel the officer accepts as justified, weighing your need to enter against any risk. This is the usual route before either rehabilitation timeline is met
If It Maps to Criminal Harassment: Serious Criminality Under IRPA s.36(1)
A criminal harassment equivalent carries a ten-year Canadian maximum, which meets the "at least 10 years" threshold in IRPA s.36(1)(b). That classification is more restrictive in one specific way:
- !No deemed rehabilitation, the automatic ten-year route does not apply to serious criminality no matter how much time has passed
- ✓Criminal Rehabilitation: still available once at least five years have passed since you completed your entire sentence. For serious criminality the IRCC processing fee is the higher tier (verified at $1,231 as of December 1, 2025, but always confirm the current fee on IRCC). Once approved, the inadmissibility is permanently resolved
- ✓Temporary Resident Permit (TRP): available at any time, including before the five-year Criminal Rehabilitation window opens, for travel the officer accepts as justified
- ✓For a permanent resident already in Canada, serious criminality also carries consequences under IRPA s.44 and, where the s.64 bar applies, the loss of an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division
Serious criminality does not mean permanently barred. It means the free automatic route is off the table and the application routes carry the higher fee tier and closer scrutiny. Officers assessing harassment and threat cases tend to look closely at the circumstances of the offence, any protective orders, completion of counselling, and the time elapsed since the conduct.
The rule
A ten-year maximum meets the "at least 10 years" threshold in IRPA s.36(1), so a criminal harassment equivalent is generally serious criminality.
What Officers Tend to Look At in Harassment and Threat Cases
Both offence families sit close to the domestic violence context, and both draw more scrutiny than the bare classification suggests. An officer assessing a TRP or Criminal Rehabilitation application may consider:
- ! The nature of the conduct and whether it was a single incident or a course of conduct over time
- ! Whether a protection order, restraining order, or peace bond was in place or was breached, which s.264(4) treats as an aggravating factor on sentence in Canada
- ! Whether there is any pattern of repeat contact with the same complainant
- ! Completion of counselling and evidence of behavioural change since the offence
- ! The reason for travel and the time elapsed since the sentence was completed
Documenting rehabilitation thoroughly, court records, proof the entire sentence is complete, counselling completion, character references, and stable employment, is what makes an application readable to an officer. It does not guarantee an outcome, and no honest source will tell you otherwise.
How the Two Offences Compare for Admissibility
| Offence | Canadian maximum (indictment) | IRPA classification | Deemed rehabilitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Criminal harassment, s.264 | 10 years | Serious criminality, s.36(1) | Not available |
| Uttering threats to a person, s.264.1(1)(a) | 5 years | Criminality, s.36(2) | Possible after 10 years |
| Threats to property or animals, s.264.1(1)(b), (c) | 2 years | Criminality, s.36(2) | Possible after 10 years |
| Assault, s.266 (for comparison) | 5 years | Criminality, s.36(2) | Possible after 10 years |
| Assault causing bodily harm, s.267 (for comparison) | 10 years | Serious criminality, s.36(1) | Not available |
Maximums are the Criminal Code maximums on indictment. Deemed rehabilitation columns assume a single conviction and completion of the entire sentence; an officer still assesses your case at the port of entry or on the application.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is uttering threats a criminal offence in Canada?+
Yes. Criminal Code s.264.1 makes it an offence to knowingly utter, convey or cause anyone to receive a threat to cause death or bodily harm, to burn, destroy or damage property, or to kill, poison or injure an animal that is someone’s property. It is a hybrid offence, so the Crown can proceed summarily or by indictment. Our Criminal Code s.264.1 page shows the full section.
Can you go to jail for uttering threats?+
Yes. On indictment, a threat to cause death or bodily harm carries up to five years in prison under Criminal Code s.264.1(2), and a threat against property or an animal carries up to two years under s.264.1(3). The Crown can also proceed by summary conviction. A court sets the actual sentence. The comparison table on this page lines up both maximums with their IRPA classification.
What are the elements of criminal harassment?+
Criminal Code s.264 requires conduct that makes another person reasonably fear for their safety or the safety of anyone they know, done knowing they are harassed or reckless about it. The conduct is one of four kinds: repeatedly following them, repeatedly communicating with them, besetting or watching their home or workplace, or threatening conduct toward them or their family. Our Criminal Code s.264 page has the full text.
Is criminal harassment serious criminality in Canada for immigration?+
Generally yes. Criminal harassment carries a maximum of ten years on indictment, and IRPA s.36(1)(b) applies where the Canadian equivalent of a foreign offence carries a maximum of at least ten years. So deemed rehabilitation does not apply, and Criminal Rehabilitation or a Temporary Resident Permit is generally the route. An officer decides how your offence maps. The Criminal Equivalency page explains the comparison.
Does a stalking conviction make me inadmissible to Canada?+
It can. Canada compares the essential elements of your offence to the closest Criminal Code offence and ignores the foreign label. Where the elements include a course of conduct that reasonably makes the complainant fear for their safety, the closest match is usually criminal harassment under s.264, which is generally serious criminality. Different elements can map to a lesser offence. The Admissibility Explorer shows which IRPA grounds apply.
How is uttering threats treated for Canadian entry?+
A conviction that maps to uttering threats is generally criminality under IRPA s.36(2), since both maximums sit under the ten-year line: five years for a threat to a person, two years for property or an animal. That keeps deemed rehabilitation available for a single conviction once ten years have passed since the whole sentence was completed. The Rehabilitation Calculator shows which timeline applies to your dates.
My charge was prosecuted as a summary offence. Does that help?+
Generally not for the classification. IRPA s.36(3)(a) deems a hybrid offence to be indictable even if it was prosecuted summarily, and both criminal harassment and uttering threats are hybrid. So the maximum on indictment is what the assessment uses. The sentence you received still matters when an officer weighs a Temporary Resident Permit or Criminal Rehabilitation application. IRPA s.36 in our law explorer has the full rule.
Can a criminal harassment conviction clear up on its own?+
Deemed rehabilitation cannot clear it. That automatic route needs an equivalent maximum of less than ten years, and criminal harassment carries exactly ten. Criminal Rehabilitation resolves it permanently once approved, and you can apply once at least five years have passed since your whole sentence was completed, including probation, fines and conditions. For earlier travel, a Temporary Resident Permit is the usual option. The Criminal Rehabilitation page explains the application.
Your Next Step
Do not guess at the classification. Use the free explorer to understand how a harassment or threats record is read under Canadian law, anonymously, in minutes, then take the actual court record to a licensed professional.
Explore Your Admissibility: FreePart of:Criminal record
- Section 44 Report: What It Means & What Happens Next
- Deported from Canada: Can You Come Back?
- Can You Enter Canada with a DUI?
The textbook on this subject
Volume 1: Entering Canada $79
Every admissibility ground in Canadian law, explained with the official text cited.
Official sources
This page is based on law and policy published by the Government of Canada.