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 in plain language, 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 for you: 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, and 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, not you and not this page, performs the equivalency assessment, and 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.
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.
See How Your Conviction Maps to Canadian Law
The Entering Canada volume of our deep-dive library explains every admissibility ground, the equivalency framework, and every rehabilitation pathway in plain language, fully cited from the public law. Education, not advice.
View the LibraryFrequently Asked Questions
Is criminal harassment serious criminality in Canada for immigration?+
Generally yes. Criminal harassment under Criminal Code s.264 is a hybrid offence with a maximum of ten years on indictment. IRPA s.36(1)(b) is triggered where a foreign offence, if committed in Canada, would be punishable by a maximum term of at least ten years, so a conviction that maps to s.264 generally falls into serious criminality. The practical effect is that deemed rehabilitation does not apply and Criminal Rehabilitation or a Temporary Resident Permit is generally the route. An officer still decides how your specific offence maps to Canadian law.
Does a stalking conviction make me inadmissible to Canada?+
It can. Canada assesses the essential elements of the offence you were convicted of, not its name, so a conviction labelled stalking is compared to the closest Criminal Code offence. Where the elements include a course of conduct that reasonably causes the complainant to fear for their safety, the closest match is usually criminal harassment under s.264, which carries a ten-year maximum and is generally serious criminality. Where the elements differ, the equivalent may be a lesser offence with a lower maximum.
How is uttering threats treated for Canadian entry?+
Uttering threats under s.264.1 is hybrid, and the maximum depends on what was threatened. A threat to cause death or bodily harm to a person carries a five-year maximum on indictment, and a threat against property or an animal carries a two-year maximum. Both are under the ten-year line, so a conviction that maps here is generally criminality under IRPA s.36(2) rather than serious criminality. That keeps deemed rehabilitation available for a single conviction once ten years have passed since the entire sentence was completed.
My charge was prosecuted as a summary offence, does that help?+
Generally not for the classification. IRPA s.36(3)(a) provides that an offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by indictment is deemed to be an indictable offence, even if it was prosecuted summarily. Both criminal harassment and uttering threats are hybrid in Canada, so the maximum available on indictment is what the assessment uses. The sentence you actually received is still relevant to how an officer weighs a Temporary Resident Permit or Criminal Rehabilitation application, but it does not change the tier.
Can a criminal harassment conviction ever clear up on its own?+
Not through deemed rehabilitation. That automatic route is only available where the equivalent Canadian offence carries a maximum of less than ten years, and criminal harassment carries exactly ten. The route that does resolve it is Criminal Rehabilitation, which you can apply for once at least five years have passed since you completed your entire sentence, including probation, fines, and any conditions. Once approved it permanently resolves that inadmissibility. If you need to travel sooner, a Temporary Resident Permit is the usual interim option.
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: FreeOfficial sources
This page is based on law and policy published by the Government of Canada.