The Legal Definition: What Canadian Law Actually Says

Most people think a harassing call is just "a call I didn't want." Canadian law draws the line much more precisely — and where it draws it matters for anyone running outbound calling programs.

The clearest statutory definition sits in Section 372(3) of the Criminal Code, which makes it an offence to "repeatedly communicate, or cause repeated communications to be made" with a person by telecommunication, without lawful excuse and with intent to harass. Three elements must all be present:

• The communication is repeated — a single unwanted call generally does not meet the threshold.
• It happens by a means of telecommunication.
• The caller intends to harass and has no lawful excuse for calling.

That word "repeatedly" is the threshold that matters most. One call to a person who owes nothing, made in good faith, is not criminal harassment under this section. A pattern of calls after someone has asked you to stop is a different story.

Section 264 goes further. Criminal harassment covers repeatedly communicating with someone — directly or indirectly — in a way that could reasonably be expected to make them fear for their safety. Critically, subsection 264(6) states that "a person's safety includes their psychological safety." Calls that cause fear, anxiety, or emotional distress can qualify even without any physical threat.

The penalties scale with the offence. Under Section 372(4), harassing communications carry up to two years of imprisonment when prosecuted indictably. Criminal harassment under Section 264 carries up to 10 years of imprisonment for an indictable offence.

Regulators also enforce these principles in practice. The CRTC fined collection agency iQor Canada $500,000 over automated calling practices — and according to CBC News coverage of the case, the behaviors cited included repeated calls to consumers who owed no debt at all, calls to vulnerable consumers at all hours, and failure to identify whose behalf the caller was on. One wrong-number pursuit damaged a Pembroke, Ontario man's credit rating and took three years to restore.

The lesson for any calling operation is straightforward: repetition is what crosses the line. This is why structured campaign discipline — capped touch plans, approved calling windows, verified list sources, and opt-outs logged and honored immediately — is the practical defense. My AI Call Center applies exactly this approach, reviewing list source and consent records before any campaign launches and declining lists that won't support compliant calling.

If you're planning outbound calls and want them structured, disclosed, and grounded in permissioned lists, plan your campaign here — managed outbound calling from 9¢ per connected minute, quoted before launch.

What Regulators Treat as Harassing: The $500,000 iQor Case

The CRTC’s $500,000 fine against iQor Canada in 2013 remains a defining case for what regulators consider harassing call behavior under Canadian law. As Andrea Rosen of the CRTC stated, the agency targeted practices where collectors called consumers repeatedly who owed no debt at all, contacted vulnerable individuals in financial distress at all hours, and failed to identify on whose behalf they were calling. This enforcement action turned abstract legal standards into concrete markers of non-compliance that continue to inform compliant outbound calling today.

One particularly stark example involved Dave Johnson of Pembroke, Ont., who became the target of a wrong-number collection pursuit despite owing nothing. The repeated calls not only caused significant distress but also damaged his credit rating, a harm that took three years to fully repair. Such outcomes underscore why list discipline isn’t just a regulatory box to check — it’s a fundamental safeguard against real human and business harm. Calling the wrong person repeatedly, especially without identification or regard for timing, transforms a routine outreach into a source of anxiety and reputational risk.

For businesses running outbound campaigns, the iQor case offers clear, actionable lessons grounded in regulatory enforcement. First, repetition to the wrong party — whether due to poor list hygiene or aggressive retry logic — crosses into harassing behavior when there’s no lawful basis for contact. Second, calling vulnerable consumers outside reasonable hours, even if unintentional, signals disregard for consumer well-being and invites scrutiny. Third, every call must include clear identification of the caller and purpose; anonymity erodes trust and is explicitly cited as problematic by regulators. These principles align directly with the core compliance practices of services like My AI Call Center, where list verification, approved calling windows, and transparent disclosure are non-negotiable before any campaign launches. By treating these iQor-derived markers as minimum standards — not just legal requirements — organizations can build calling programs that are both effective and respectful.

How to Keep Your Outbound Calls Clearly on the Right Side of the Line

The line between persistent outreach and a harassing call comes down to three things: repetition, timing, and transparency. Canada's Criminal Code makes this explicit — Section 372(3) requires repeated communications with intent to harass and no lawful excuse, while Section 264 adds that conduct must be such a person could reasonably fear for their safety, with psychological safety expressly included. A single call generally does not meet the threshold, but a pattern of unwanted contact does.

• Cap and log call attempts per contact — both statutes hinge on "repeatedly communicates," so a hard attempt ceiling with audit-ready logs keeps every campaign on the right side of the law
• Call only within approved windows and queue after-hours leads for the next business day — the CRTC's $500,000 fine against iQor Canada specifically cited calls to vulnerable consumers "at all hours" as harassing behavior
• Identify yourself and disclose AI on every call — failure to identify on whose behalf a call is made was one of three behaviors cited in that same enforcement action
• Verify list source and consent records before launch — iQor repeatedly called consumers who owed no debt at all, and one wrong-number pursuit damaged an innocent person's credit rating for three years
• Make opt-outs easy and immediate — because psychological impact is legally relevant under Section 264(6), keyword opt-outs and instant DNC honoring are not just best practice, they are risk mitigation

My AI Call Center bakes these rules into every campaign before a single dial is placed. Lists are reviewed for source and consent, calling windows are locked in, scripts include AI disclosure and escalation paths, and every outcome — including opt-outs — is logged and routed back to the client's systems in real time. The result is structured outreach that confirms, qualifies, reminds, and retains without crossing into the territory regulators treat as harassment.

What Compliant Campaign Design Looks Like in Practice

The difference between a compliant campaign and a harassing one is usually decided before the first call is ever placed. Canada's Criminal Code requires repeated communication for conduct to qualify as harassment under Section 372(3), which means repetition is rarely an accident — it is a design failure.

A structured campaign approach addresses this at the source. Each campaign starts with one clear goal — confirm, qualify, remind, survey, or retain — and every call attempt is logged against a defined touch plan. When the plan is complete, or a contact opts out, calling stops. This directly counters the behaviors the CRTC cited in its $500,000 fine against iQor Canada: repeated calls to people who owed nothing, and calls to vulnerable consumers at all hours.

List review before dialing is the second safeguard. The iQor case included a wrong-number pursuit that damaged an innocent man's credit rating and took three years to restore. That is what happens when nobody verifies who is on the list. My AI Call Center's process reflects this lesson: list source and consent records are checked before any campaign launches, and bought lists without clear permission records are flagged — in most cases, declined outright.

A compliant campaign design includes these controls before launch:

• One clear goal per campaign, scoped and quoted before launch, so call frequency follows a plan rather than impulse.
• List and consent review, with calling windows defined in advance — after-hours leads queue for the next business day, never "all hours."
• Script and escalation approval, including caller identification on every call. Failure to identify was one of the three behaviors cited in the CRTC fine.
• Disposition-coded outcome reports — confirmed, qualified, renewed, opted out, no answer — so repetition is visible and auditable.
• Opt-out and DNC logs carried across all campaigns, so a "stop" on one campaign is honored on every campaign.

Because Section 264(6) explicitly includes psychological safety in the definition of harassment, easy opt-outs are not a courtesy — they are a legal control. Keyword opt-outs, AI disclosure on every call, and an escalation path to a human all reduce the fear and anxiety that repeated unwanted calls can create.

The practical takeaway is simple: harassment risk lives in unmanaged repetition, unverified lists, and unidentified callers. A structured, reviewed campaign removes all three before the phone rings.

ctaText: Plan a compliant, structured calling campaign — reviewed lists, approved scripts, from 9¢ per connected minute. socialProofText: Managed outbound campaigns run against approved, permissioned, or reviewed lists only — with opt-outs logged and honored immediately.