Is Cyberbullying a Crime You Can Be Committed of in BC, Canada?

Cyberbullying is not a stand-alone offence in the Canadian Criminal Code, but the conduct that gets labelled cyberbullying maps onto several specific offences that carry serious consequences. The most significant is the non-consensual distribution of intimate images offence in Section 162.1, which Parliament added in 2014 through Bill C-13. Criminal harassment under Section 264, uttering threats under Section 264.1, and false messages under Section 372 also commonly apply. This guide walks through how Canadian law actually approaches cyberbullying conduct and what defence options exist.

Is Cyberbullying a Crime in Canada?

The word “cyberbullying” does not appear in the Criminal Code of Canada. There is no offence called cyberbullying. What Parliament has done is criminalize specific categories of online conduct that fall within what the public describes as cyberbullying. The most important of these provisions is the non-consensual distribution of intimate images offence, which was added by Bill C-13 in 2014. Several pre-existing offences also commonly apply.

The practical effect is that someone whose conduct is described as cyberbullying may face a charge under one of the following provisions, depending on what was actually done:

• Section 162.1: non-consensual distribution of an intimate image (NCIID)
• Section 264: criminal harassment
• Section 264.1: uttering threats
• Section 372: false messages, indecent or harassing communications
• Section 298 to 301: defamatory libel (rarely used but available)
• Section 163: obscenity
• Section 152 and 153: sexual offences against minors where online contact escalated

Crown chooses the charges that fit the conduct. Multiple charges from a single course of online behaviour are common.

Section 162.1 and the Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Images

The most significant criminal law response to cyberbullying in Canada was the addition of Section 162.1 of the Criminal Code by the federal Bill C-13 (Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act) in 2014. Section 162.1 makes it an offence to publish, distribute, transmit, sell, make available, or advertise an intimate image of a person, knowing that the person did not give their consent to the conduct or being reckless as to whether they consented.

An “intimate image” is defined in Section 162.1(2) as a visual recording in which the person depicted is nude, exposing their genital organs or anal region or breasts, or engaged in explicit sexual activity. The image must have been recorded in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the person depicted must have retained a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time of the offence.

The offence is hybrid, meaning Crown can proceed by indictment or summarily. On indictment, the maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment. On summary conviction, the maximum is six months. The offence carries collateral consequences as well: forfeiture of devices used to commit the offence under Section 164, a prohibition order under Section 162.2, and potential SOIRA registration in certain cases.

Defences to Section 162.1 include consent (express or implied), public good (Section 162.1(3)), no reasonable expectation of privacy at the time of the offence, mistake of fact as to consent, and challenges to the Crown’s proof of identity or distribution.

Criminal Harassment Under Section 264

Many cyberbullying files are charged as criminal harassment under Section 264 of the Criminal Code. Section 264 makes it an offence to engage in conduct that causes another person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them, where the accused knows or is reckless as to whether the conduct creates that fear.

The listed prohibited conduct includes:

• Repeatedly following the other person or someone known to them
• Repeatedly communicating with the other person or someone known to them, directly or indirectly
• Besetting or watching a place where the other person resides, works, or happens to be
• Engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or a family member

The “repeatedly communicating” branch is the one that captures most online harassment conduct. Repeated social media messages, repeated email contact, repeated commentary on the complainant’s posts, and similar online conduct can all establish the actus reus. The mental element is the accused’s knowledge or recklessness as to whether the complainant feared for their safety.

Section 264 is a hybrid offence with a maximum of ten years on indictment. It commonly stands alone or stacks with other charges depending on the file.

Other Criminal Code Sections That Apply to Online Conduct

Section 264.1 (uttering threats). A threat to cause death or bodily harm communicated online is an offence regardless of whether the threat was carried out or could have been. Crown must prove that a reasonable person would view the communication as a serious threat. Maximum five years on indictment.

Section 372 (false messages, indecent or harassing communications). Section 372 covers conveying false information with intent to alarm or injure, indecent communications made with intent to alarm or annoy, and harassing communications made with intent to harass. Recently expanded to address online communication specifically. Maximum two years on indictment.

Section 163 (obscenity). Publishing or distributing obscene material online can attract Section 163 charges. The threshold for obscenity is high and the section is used selectively.

Section 152, 153, 171.1, and 172.1 (offences against minors). Where the online conduct involved a minor, additional offences relating to sexual interference, sexual exploitation, transmission of sexually explicit material to a child, and luring a child apply. These offences carry mandatory minimum sentences.

Section 380 (fraud). Where the online conduct involved misrepresentation that caused economic harm (catfishing financial scams, false fundraising), fraud charges can attach.

BC Enforcement and Investigation of Cyberbullying Files

Cyberbullying files in BC are typically investigated by the local detachment that has territorial responsibility for the complainant. The Vernon RCMP and Kelowna RCMP both handle a meaningful volume of online conduct files. The investigation usually involves preservation of social media accounts, production orders to platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok), and forensic examination of devices.

The investigation can take months. Production orders to multinational platforms move slowly. Forensic device analysis at RCMP labs is backlogged. The result is that an accused often does not learn that they are under investigation until well after the conduct, and the disclosure when it arrives is often technical and voluminous.

Defence work on cyberbullying files frequently involves Charter applications (Section 8 challenges to device searches and production orders, Section 10(b) challenges to interview procedure), identity disputes (was the account in use by the accused at the relevant time), and arguments around interpretation of online communications (sarcasm, group chat dynamics, missing context).

What Happens If You Are Charged With a Cyberbullying-Related Offence in BC

The procedural path from charge to resolution in a cyberbullying file looks similar to other criminal files. First appearance at the Vernon Law Courts or Kelowna Law Courts. Disclosure obtained from Crown. Defence review of the disclosure for Charter issues, evidentiary issues, and identification issues. Negotiation with Crown on resolution, or trial preparation if the file is going to trial.

What distinguishes these files is the digital evidence. The disclosure can include thousands of pages of social media exports, chat logs, and metadata. Forensic device analysis reports require careful review. The defence position often turns on what is missing from the disclosure as much as what is in it.

Sentencing for cyberbullying-related convictions varies widely. A first-time Section 264 harassment conviction with no aggravating factors might attract a conditional discharge or a suspended sentence with probation. A Section 162.1 NCIID conviction will produce a more serious result, particularly where the complainant was a minor or the distribution was widespread. SOIRA registration may apply for the more serious offences.

Contact Julian Van Der Walle Law

If you are facing a cyberbullying-related charge in BC, the early defence work matters. Julian represents clients across Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, Salmon Arm, and the Kootenays. The first consultation is free.