Yes — Criminal Harassment and Harassing Communications Carry Jail Time

Yes — jail is a real possibility. Under Canada's Criminal Code, criminal harassment (section 264) carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison when prosecuted as an indictable offence, while harassing communications (section 372(3)) carries up to two years, according to the official text of the Criminal Code.

These are two distinct offences, and understanding the difference matters for anyone running outbound calling programs — especially campaigns run through a third party such as a call centre.

Criminal harassment (s. 264) prohibits repeated conduct — including repeated telephone calls — that causes the target to reasonably fear for their safety. The Department of Justice notes that behaviours like repeated phone calls, hanging up when someone answers, or leaving threatening messages can qualify. Notably, the law focuses on the victim's experience rather than the caller's intent: legal analysis confirms that a lack of intent to frighten is not a defence. A summary conviction can still mean two years less a day in jail plus a fine.

Harassing communications (s. 372(3)) is narrower but easier to prove. It applies to anyone who repeatedly uses telecommunication with intent to harass, and it does not require showing the victim feared for their safety — only repeated contact with intent to harass. That lower bar makes it the more likely charge in calling-related cases.

Both provisions also reach calls made through intermediaries. Instructing a call centre to make repeated calls can create liability for the party who directs the calls, not just the caller on the line. For organizations using managed calling services like My AI Call Center, this is exactly why list discipline and lawful excuse matter before any campaign launches.

The law does recognize a critical exemption: repeated contact is not criminal when done for a lawful purpose. For example, debt collection conducted according to applicable regulations is expressly excluded. The same principle protects legitimate business outreach — provided consent records and calling protocols are documented.

To stay on the right side of these provisions, any outbound calling program should:

• Verify consent and list source before launch, with records on file
• Honour opt-out requests immediately and log them across campaigns
• Avoid patterns like excessive frequency, calls at odd hours, or hanging up on answers
• Document the lawful purpose behind every campaign to establish lawful excuse

Statistics Canada data cited by the Department of Justice shows roughly 8 in 10 victims are women and 9 in 10 accused are men, and most cases involve people known to each other — but the statute itself applies to any repeated, harassing telecommunication without lawful excuse, including commercial contexts.

What the Law Considers Harassment — and What It Doesn't

The line between persistent outreach and criminal conduct in Canada is drawn by specific behaviours the law treats as harassment — and the distinction carries real consequences. Under the Criminal Code, two separate offences cover harassing calls: criminal harassment (section 264) and harassing communications (section 372(3)). Both target repeated contact, but they differ in what prosecutors must prove.

Criminal harassment requires showing the victim reasonably feared for their safety because of the conduct. Harassing communications under section 372(3) is easier to prove: it only requires intent to harass through repeated telecommunication, with no fear element needed. Maximum penalties reflect the difference — up to 10 years for indictable criminal harassment versus up to two years for harassing communications.

• Repeated calls at unreasonable hours or frequencies
• Hanging up immediately when the call is answered
• Leaving threatening or intimidating voicemails
• Continuing to call after a clear request to stop

These patterns are explicitly cited by the Department of Justice as conduct that may qualify as criminal harassment. The law also captures "causing" communications through third parties — meaning instructing a call centre to place calls that meet these criteria can create liability for the party directing the campaign.

A critical exemption exists for lawful excuse. Repeated contact conducted according to laws regulating collections — such as debt collection performed per applicable rules — is not criminal harassment. This makes documented consent, clear calling windows, and immediate opt-out honouring essential safeguards. Approximately 88% of criminal harassment victims are harassed by someone they know, often in the context of family violence, but the statutes apply equally to commercial communications that cross the line.

My AI Call Center structures every campaign around approved, permissioned, or reviewed lists only — never indiscriminate cold calling. Scripts, disclosure, and opt-out handling are approved before launch, and outcomes including opt-outs and DNC requests are logged and routed back to client records immediately.

How Outbound Calling Campaigns Can Cross the Line

Outbound calling campaigns can quickly cross into legally risky territory when routine practices ignore established boundaries. Speed-to-lead bursts, for example, often escalate into excessive frequency that feels relentless to recipients, satisfying the "repeated communication" element prosecutors rely on under both criminal harassment and harassing communications provisions. When companies call new leads within minutes without regard for prior contact or consent, they risk creating a pattern that could be interpreted as intent to harass, especially if recipients perceive the calls as intrusive or threatening. Canadian law makes clear that lack of intent to frighten is not a defence—recklessness alone can establish liability when repeated calls cause a victim to reasonably fear for their safety.

Ignoring opt-out logs or failing to honor DNC requests directly fuels prosecutorial arguments about intent or recklessness. Each call placed after a clear request to cease contact strengthens the case that the caller disregarded the recipient’s wishes, which courts have interpreted as evidence of harassing intent under section 372(3) of the Criminal Code. Similarly, using AI-generated voices without upfront disclosure can contribute to circumstances where recipients feel deceived or unsafe, particularly when combined with other aggravating factors like calling outside permitted windows or using purchased lists lacking verified consent. These patterns are not just regulatory missteps—they can meet the threshold for criminal liability when they create a sustained campaign of unwanted communication.

Businesses that rely on purchased lists without verifying consent records are especially vulnerable, as such lists often contain outdated or improperly sourced data that increases the likelihood of repeated, unwanted calls. Legal interpretations emphasize that conducting calls "according to laws regulating collections" provides a lawful excuse—but only when proper protocols are followed. My AI Call Center builds compliance into every campaign by reviewing list source and consent records before launch, ensuring calls remain within approved windows and that opt-outs are logged and honored immediately. This disciplined approach helps prevent the kind of repeated, reckless behavior that prosecutors use to establish criminal harassment, protecting both recipients and businesses from avoidable legal exposure.

Compliance Controls That Demonstrate Lawful Excuse

Jail time for harassment in Canada is not hypothetical — a criminal harassment conviction carries up to 10 years imprisonment, and harassing communications under section 372(3) can still mean up to two years in jail. For any organization running outbound calls, the practical question is not just "can this happen?" but "what controls prove our calls are lawful if anyone asks?"

The research is clear that lawful excuse is the operative defence. Repeated contact is not criminal harassment when it is conducted for a lawful purpose, such as debt collection carried out according to applicable regulations, per the Department of Justice's guidance on criminal harassment. That excuse only holds up if you can document it — which means consent records, purpose records, and call logs need to exist before the first call is placed, not reconstructed afterward.

Consent verification is the first control. Legal experts note that defences to harassment charges include showing the communication was consensual or served a lawful reason, while lack of intent to frighten is not a defence — so the burden sits on documentation, not good intentions. Lists without clear permission records simply should not be dialed. This is why My AI Call Center reviews list source and consent records before any campaign launches, and flags or declines bought lists that cannot support the campaign.

The second control is behavioural: avoid the specific patterns the law singles out. The Department of Justice explicitly cites repeated calls at unreasonable frequencies or times, hanging up upon answer, and threatening messages as conduct that may qualify as criminal harassment. Frequency caps, quiet-hour enforcement, and quiet-time windows are therefore not just regulatory hygiene — they are evidence against the "repeated communication with intent to harass" element.

A working compliance stack for any calling operation should include:

• Consent and purpose records for every campaign — appointment reminder, renewal, survey — establishing lawful context before launch.
• Frequency caps and quiet-hour enforcement, so calling patterns never resemble the harassing conduct described in the Criminal Code.
• Immediate opt-out honouring with logged dispositions, since persistent calling after a request to cease strengthens any case for intent to harass.
• AI-voice disclosure on every call, so recipients always know they are speaking with an artificial voice and can request a human.
• Outcome reporting with disposition codes and per-call notes, creating an auditable trail of what actually happened.

Opt-out handling deserves special weight. Canadian legal guidance for harassment victims emphasizes evidence preservation — and an opt-out that was logged but ignored becomes evidence against the caller, not for them. Every opt-out should be honoured immediately and carried into a permanent do-not-call record across all campaigns.

Finally, remember that liability can extend to those who cause the communications, not just those who make them. Instructing a call centre or an AI system to run a campaign can create the same exposure as dialing the numbers yourself — which makes operational controls, not just good scripts, the real line between a reminder call and a criminal charge.

What to Do If a Recipient Alleges Harassment

When a recipient alleges harassment, your immediate response can significantly impact legal exposure. Preserve all relevant evidence, including call recordings, disposition logs, consent records, and opt-out timestamps, as these are critical for demonstrating compliance or identifying gaps. According to Justice Canada, evidence preservation is essential for both criminal prosecution and defence, particularly when assessing whether repeated communications caused a reasonable fear for safety.

Pause the campaign and the specific number in question to prevent further contact that could exacerbate liability. Engage legal counsel promptly to evaluate whether the contact falls under a lawful excuse, such as regulated debt collection, which the Criminal Code exempts from criminal harassment provisions when conducted according to applicable laws. This assessment helps determine if the conduct meets the threshold for criminal harassment under section 264 or harassing communications under section 372(3), which carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment for indictable offences as noted in Criminal Code section 372(3).

Understand the parallel tracks of response: police may pursue a criminal investigation under sections 264 or 372(3); the recipient may seek a peace bond or protection order (civil remedy), breach of which can lead to additional criminal charges; and regulatory bodies like the CRTC may investigate complaints under CASL or TCPA for unsolicited or non-compliant calls. Addressing each track separately prevents compounding liability, as criminal, civil, and regulatory consequences operate independently but can overlap in practice. For My AI Call Center, this structured approach ensures campaigns remain compliant while protecting clients from unintended legal exposure.