I am a lawyer, not Qualified in Canadian law unfortunately, but in a similar commonwealth jurisdiction so I can perhaps give some general pointers.
Firstly, my condolences on being the victim of what sounds like a cowardly and menacing assailment.
Unfortunately it is difficult to give a firm answer without further information. As a starting point, and regardless of jurisdiction, there are some basic principles which can be distilled and are pretty much universally applicable throughout legal systems such as ours.
- You will need to show that his threats were accompanied by a real and immediate threat of physical violence. Was there an imminent prospect that the threats would be carried out? Obviously there is a vast difference between a threat originating from a workplace colleague down the hall than from a 15 year old youth in Nairobi.
In Cox, 957 F.2d at 265 the defendant telephoned a bank that had ordered the repossessing of his truck which contained some personal items, and said “I tell you what, you all better have my personal items to me by five o’clock today or it[’]s going to be a lot of hurt people there.” Here the threat was considered to convey the imminent prospect of execution (in part because his property could not have been returned by the five o’clock deadline).
- Can it be considered a true threat? To quote from The People v. B. F. Jones, 62 Mich. 304 (1886). "It is not the policy of the law to punish those unsuccessful threats which it is not presumed would terrify ordinary persons excessively; and there is so much opportunity for magnifying or misunderstanding undefined menaces that probably as much mischief would be caused by letting them be prosecuted as by refraining from it.
The sentences “I’ve got it in for you. I hate you” may or may not inspire terror depending on the totality of the circumstances. Does this person have a reputation for violence? What is the history of the relationship between you two?
- It may be that under Canadian law it is a general intent crime, in which case intent must be proved by objectively looking at the defendant’s behavior in the totality of the circumstances. So we would need to look at the circumstances surrounding the threats, for example, was the threat ‘out of the blue’ so to speak, or was it aimed at achieving some coercive end?
I’m afraid I’ve raised more questions that answers, but I would like to hear more from you concerning the general background and the exact nature of the threats made before commenting further.