Understanding Police Authority: Criminal Code Section 372 as the Primary Tool

Police in Canada rely on Section 372 of the Criminal Code to pursue criminal charges for harassing phone calls, a provision designed to address repeated, unwanted communication intended to cause distress. This hybrid offence applies when someone communicates repeatedly by telecommunication without lawful excuse and with the intent to harass a person. To lay a charge, police must prove four elements: repeated communications, use of telecommunication, intent to harass, and absence of a lawful excuse. The law was updated in 2014 to clarify and modernize these harassment provisions, ensuring they cover modern forms of communication like phone calls and digital messages.

For a successful prosecution, the Crown must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused engaged in a pattern of calls or messages aimed at harassing the victim, not merely isolated or accidental contact. Courts have interpreted "repeatedly" to mean more than a few instances, though the exact threshold depends on context, including frequency and timing. The requirement of intent to harass distinguishes criminal harassment from nuisance calls or telemarketing that, while annoying, lacks the deliberate aim to torment or frighten. Lawful excuse — such as legitimate debt collection or emergency notifications — can negate criminal liability if proven.

Penalties for violating Section 372 reflect the seriousness with which Canadian law treats intentional harassment. As a hybrid offence, the Crown can proceed either by indictment or summary conviction, depending on the severity and circumstances of the case. If prosecuted by indictment, the maximum penalty is up to two years' imprisonment. Summary conviction carries lesser penalties but still results in a criminal record. This dual-track approach allows police and prosecutors to tailor the response to the harm caused, reserving the most serious sanctions for persistent, targeted campaigns of harassment.

My AI Call Center operates within this legal framework by ensuring all outbound calling campaigns are built on approved, permissioned, or reviewed lists, with consent records verified before launch. This discipline helps prevent actions that could be construed as harassing under criminal law or violate consent-based rules under Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL). While police focus on criminal intent under Section 372, regulatory bodies like the CRTC handle commercial messaging violations under CASL, which imposes fines of up to $10 million for corporations and $1 million for individuals. The distinction is critical: police pursue criminal harassment, not routine compliance lapses, though both regimes aim to protect individuals from unwanted and harmful communication.

Why Most Unwanted Calls Fall Outside Police Jurisdiction: The CASL Regulatory Track

Calling the police about an annoying telemarketer is like calling a plumber about an electrical fire — wrong responder, wrong system. Most unwanted calls in Canada simply don't involve a crime, and that means they never reach a police officer's desk.

The distinction comes down to intent. Criminal Code s. 372(3) targets someone who repeatedly communicates with a person "without lawful excuse and with intent to harass" — a hybrid offence carrying up to two years' imprisonment. A business calling a number on its marketing list, however aggressively, usually lacks that intent. So the complaint routes elsewhere.

That "elsewhere" is Canada's Anti-Spam Legislation. CASL was created in 2014 as a civil administrative regime — not a criminal one — enforced primarily by the CRTC, alongside the Competition Bureau and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. The RCMP's role is largely limited to cooperation, such as co-chairing Fraud Prevention Month. Leading Canadian lawyers describe CASL as among the strictest anti-spam laws in the world, and it applies to spam sent into Canada regardless of where it originates.

What makes CASL so demanding for callers is where the burden sits. In all cases, the onus falls on the sender of a commercial electronic message to prove it had the necessary consent — not on the recipient to prove they never gave it. For organizations running outbound campaigns, that consent trail is everything. It's why My AI Call Center reviews list source and consent records before any campaign launches, and flags or declines bought lists without clear permission records.

The financial stakes are not subtle. CASL penalties can reach $10 million for corporations and $1 million for individuals, including directors and officers. Real enforcement backs that up:

• A $1 million fine in the first-ever CASL finding
• A $48,000 penalty against a dating site operator over a faulty unsubscribe mechanism
• Over 38,000 visits to the fightspam.gc.ca "report spam" form in 2024–25 alone

For recipients, the practical takeaway is this: an unwanted sales call belongs on the fightspam.gc.ca reporting form, not in a police report. For callers, the line between "annoying" and "criminal" is drawn by intent to harass — but the regulatory line is drawn by consent records, and regulators don't need criminal intent to fine you heavily.

How AI and Spoofing Are Changing the Threat Landscape—and What Legitimate Callers Must Do

The rise of AI-generated calls and caller ID spoofing has blurred the line between legitimate outreach and deceptive harassment, creating new challenges for both consumers and compliant businesses. Fraudsters now use spoofed numbers and AI to mimic trusted entities, with more than half of spam and malicious emails being AI-generated, according to the OECD. These tactics exploit urgency and familiarity to trick recipients, often bypassing traditional call-blocking tools. For legitimate callers, this environment demands heightened vigilance to avoid being mistaken for bad actors or inadvertently enabling abuse through poor practices.

To distinguish ethical campaigns from those targeted by police or regulators, businesses must adopt rigorous compliance habits rooted in transparency and consent. This begins with explicit disclosure that a call uses AI-generated voice, allowing recipients to ask for a human or opt out immediately. Keyword opt-outs like STOP and REVOKE must be honored without delay, and every opt-out request should be logged and synchronized across all campaigns. Equally critical is maintaining detailed consent records — including source, date, and scope — since under CASL, the burden of proof lies with the sender to demonstrate prior express consent. My AI Call Center builds these safeguards into every campaign, ensuring list discipline and real-time opt-out honoring are non-negotiable steps before launch.

These practices aren’t just about avoiding penalties; they reinforce trust in an ecosystem increasingly undermined by abuse. While police focus on Criminal Code harassment under Section 372 for repeated, unwanted calls with intent to harass, regulators like the CRTC enforce CASL against deceptive or non-consensual commercial calls — including those using AI or spoofing to mislead. By prioritizing clear AI disclosure, instant opt-out compliance, and auditable consent trails, legitimate callers align with both legal tracks: reducing criminal risk by eliminating harassing patterns and meeting regulatory standards for consent and transparency. In a landscape where bad actors weaponize technology, doing calls the right way isn’t just compliant — it’s a competitive advantage.

Turning Compliance into Campaign Safety: My AI Call Center’s List-Discipline Approach

Turning Compliance into Campaign Safety: My AI Call Center’s List-Discipline Approach

My AI Call Center builds campaign safety by treating list discipline as a legal safeguard, not just an operational detail. Every campaign begins with a pre-launch review of list source and consent records to ensure contacts are permissioned or approved — a direct response to CASL’s burden of proof, which requires senders to demonstrate they had prior express consent for commercial electronic messages. This process prevents calls that could be construed as harassing under Criminal Code s. 372 by eliminating repeated, unsolicited outreach without lawful excuse.

The approach aligns with both legal tracks: avoiding Criminal Code liability by ensuring communications are not repeated without intent or excuse, and meeting CASL’s consent requirements through documented, auditable records. Clients receive opt-out logs and DNC compliance reports that double as evidence of lawful calling practices — critical if questions arise about intent or consent. By honoring keyword opt-outs like STOP and REVOKE immediately and logging every disposition, the service turns compliance into tangible campaign safety.

• CASL allows fines up to $10 million for corporations and $1 million for individuals, making consent verification essential.
• More than half of spam and malicious emails are now AI-generated, increasing regulatory scrutiny on automated calling practices.
• Criminal Code s. 372 requires proof of intent to harass — a risk mitigated by calling only permissioned lists with clear consent trails.

This list-discipline framework ensures campaigns stay within legal boundaries while delivering measurable outcomes like appointment confirmations or survey responses. Clients avoid the reputational and financial risks associated with non-compliant calling, knowing their outreach is grounded in verified permission and transparent execution. For organizations seeking to run useful calls without crossing legal lines, the foundation starts with a list that’s been reviewed, approved, and proven permissioned before a single call is made.

Plan a compliant campaign — managed outbound calling on approved, permissioned lists from 9¢ per connected minute.