R v O'Brien 2013 SCC 2 deals with uttering threats. The Court holds, as is settled law, that it is not an essential element of threating that the recipient of the threats uttered by the accused feel intimidated by them or be shown to have taken them seriously. All that needs to be proven is that they were intended by the accused to have that effect. That said the Court held the reaction of the person threatened is relevant in context. The Court holds:
 At no point in her reasons did the trial judge state, as the Crown contends, that she was acquitting the accused solely because the recipient of the threats did not take them seriously.
 Rather, after setting out the law correctly, the trial judge quite properly felt bound "to consider the words [uttered by Mr. O'Brien] in the context of the evidence of [the person to whom they were directed]". That evidence was relevant and therefore admissible for the purpose of assessing the context in which the words were spoken.
 As Cory J. explained in Clemente, at p. 762:
. . . the question of whether the accused had the intent to intimidate, or that his words were meant to be taken seriously will, in the absence of any explanation by the accused, usually be determined by the words used, the context in which they were spoken, and the person to whom they were directed.
 Manifestly, the trial judge asked herself the right question. Her answer was that the evidence left her with a reasonable doubt whether Mr. O'Brien had acted with the requisitemens rea of the offence with which he was charged. And she entered an acquittal for that reason.
 I agree with the Crown that it is not an essential element of the offence under s. 264.1(1)(a) that the recipient of the threats uttered by the accused feel intimidated by them or be shown to have taken them seriously. All that needs to be proven is that they were intended by the accused to have that effect.