Can tracking your spouse with an AirTag become criminal harassment?

From location sharing to a criminal charge

In the video, Rafael Ferreira describes a matter involving a tracking device associated with a couple’s vehicle. Location information was used to observe a spouse’s movements. Suspicions about an affair led to a confrontation, and a criminal harassment charge followed.

The useful lesson is the sequence: how the device came to be there, what access had previously been shared, how the information was used and what happened afterwards. These details can become important parts of the evidence. A location record may show where a device was, but the meaning of that record still needs to be examined.

This article develops the practical issues raised in Rafael’s account. It does not identify the people involved, reproduce their case documents or suggest that a similar allegation will have the same outcome.

What does criminal harassment require?

Criminal harassment is addressed by section 264 of Canada’s Criminal Code. Its current wording covers specified conduct without lawful authority, together with intent to harass, knowledge or recklessness about harassment, and circumstances in which the conduct could reasonably be expected to make the other person believe that their safety, or someone else’s safety, is threatened. Safety includes psychological safety.

The listed conduct expressly includes monitoring another person’s location, movements, actions or social interactions. It also covers repeatedly following or communicating with a person, watching certain places and threatening conduct. The section is not confined to physical violence or an explicit spoken threat. Read section 264.

There is no universal number of messages that, by itself, proves this offence. The applicable legal elements and the circumstances must be assessed. An allegation, a charge and proof of guilt are different things.

What if the device or location sharing was already shared?

Rafael’s example raises a question many couples may overlook: does an earlier arrangement answer every question about later monitoring? A representative needs to understand what was agreed, which device or account was involved, who could access it and whether the arrangement or relationship changed.

For a consultation, prepare a timeline distinguishing the original sharing arrangement from the later conduct alleged by police. Explain whether the device was being used to locate property, monitor someone’s movements or do something else. The account settings and the surrounding communications may help clarify the sequence.

Build a clear picture before choosing your response

In the video, Rafael describes gathering reference letters and learning about the person behind the allegation before speaking with the Crown. That preparation supported discussions about resolution. It did not replace examining the charge and the evidence.

Useful questions for your representative include: what does the disclosure actually show; what is disputed; which communications or device records need context; and what options fit the evidence and your instructions? Your explanation should be assessed alongside the material relied on by the prosecution.

Bring your charge documents, release paperwork, next court date and any disclosure already received. Prepare a concise chronology and a list of records to discuss. Ask how to provide documents securely rather than placing detailed evidence in booking notes.

Could a peace bond be an option?

Rafael recounts negotiations that moved from a proposed suspended sentence to a peace bond resolution. He describes reference letters, participation in a Partner Assault Response program and further discussions about the proposed terms. Those are features of the individual account, rather than a formula for another case.

A peace bond is not a criminal conviction, but its conditions are enforceable and breaching them can be a criminal offence. The proposed order, its duration, contact restrictions and any weapons conditions should be understood before agreement. The disposition of each existing charge also needs to be confirmed. Justice Canada explains peace bonds.

A program referral can involve intake, scheduling and attendance. Rafael discusses waiting times in his own practice; these are not a fixed timetable for every provider. Ask what is required in your matter and confirm availability directly with the relevant program. Learn about Ontario’s PAR program.

Negotiation and trial are decisions to assess individually

The video emphasizes preparing for Crown discussions and considering an appropriate early resolution. A proposed resolution should still be compared with the available evidence, possible defences, the person’s instructions and the consequences of accepting it.

A clean record or strong references do not guarantee a withdrawal, discharge or peace bond. Equally, the emotional difficulty of a relationship breakdown does not determine guilt. Ask for an explanation of the strengths, weaknesses and practical consequences of the options before deciding.

Getting help with a criminal harassment charge in Ontario

Fast Legal Service assists with eligible criminal harassment matters within Ontario paralegal scope. Section 264 is included in the Law Society’s permitted summary conviction offences, but the exact charge and the Crown’s election must be checked before representation is accepted. See the Law Society’s permitted offences.

If you are facing an allegation involving an AirTag, GPS device, location sharing or repeated communications, start with a consultation about the charge and your next step. Virtual consultations are available across Ontario, with in-person appointments in Durham Region by arrangement.