A Sudbury woman has been found guilty of uttering threats against her son and daughter-in-law following a trial that exposed a deep and tragic fracture within a local family1. Justice G. Jenner of the Ontario Court of Justice delivered the verdict on November 6, 2025, concluding that a voicemail left by Kimberly-Ann Beites in August 2023 constituted a criminal threat to cause bodily harm and a threat to burn business property. The case centered on the interpretation of angry language used during a period of intense family grief and whether the use of the word “burn” was a literal threat of arson or a metaphorical expression of intent to pursue civil litigation.
The charges against Ms. Beites stemmed from a specific incident on August 25, 2023, regarding a voicemail message she left for her son, Darcy, at his place of work, known as Douro. The timing of the message was significant to the context of the trial, as it was recorded shortly after Ms. Beites had been excluded from the funeral of her other son, Miguel, who is survived by his spouse, Marie-Soleil. The court heard that the exclusion from the funeral ceremony was the tipping point in a relationship that was already strained by years of conflict.
During the trial, the court was presented with the recording of the voicemail, which was admitted as evidence on consent. In the recording, Ms. Beites expressed profound anger and hurt regarding her estrangement from her family, specifically mentioning her inability to see her grandchildren or attend her son’s funeral. The language used in the message was aggressive and explicit. She referred to her son as a “sick demented son of a bitch” and warned him that the family had gone “too far” with her. The pivotal moment in the recording occurred when Ms. Beites stated that if they wanted to be “famous,” she would make them famous. She then explicitly said, “I’m gonna burn you, Douro, your wife’s business. Marie’s going down. Everybody’s going down.”
The central legal question facing Justice Jenner was whether this admitted utterance met the threshold of a threat under Section 264.1 of the Criminal Code. To secure a conviction, the Crown was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Beites knowingly uttered words that conveyed a threat to cause death or bodily harm to a person, or to burn, destroy, or damage real or personal property. The law requires the court to analyze the situation from two distinct perspectives involving the physical act of the threat, known as the actus reus, and the mental intent behind it, known as the mens rea.
Regarding the actus reus, the court had to determine if a reasonable person, fully aware of the circumstances in which the words were spoken, would have perceived them as a threat. Justice Jenner noted that this hypothetical “reasonable person” is considered to be informed, practical, and realistic. The analysis does not depend on whether the recipient of the threat actually felt fear or believed the threat would be carried out. Instead, the standard is objective, looking at how an outside observer knowing the full context would interpret the words.
For the mental element, or mens rea, the Crown did not need to prove that Ms. Beites actually intended to carry out the arson or the physical harm. The law only requires proof that the accused intended for the words to be conveyed to intimidate or to be taken seriously. Justice Jenner cited the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. McRae to clarify that a court can infer what an accused intended based on the surrounding circumstances. Even if an accused person claims they did not mean to cause fear, the context in which they spoke can lead a judge to conclude that intimidation was indeed the goal.
The defence team, represented by S. von Achten and D. Rosso, presented a theory that the voicemail was not a literal threat of violence or arson. They argued that the words were promises to prosecute existing civil litigation between the family members. According to the defence, when Ms. Beites used the word “burn,” she was speaking metaphorically. They suggested she meant she would “burn” them in court or cut the family members and their businesses down to size through legal victories. The defence portrayed the voicemail as an expression of her intent to vindicate herself within ongoing family business disputes and legal battles rather than a warning of physical destruction.
To support their context, the defence highlighted the “constellation of conflicts” that existed between Ms. Beites and her family members: Darcy, Miguel, Andrea, and Marie-Soleil. The trial touched upon a wide variety of disputes, including attempts to have Ms. Beites committed for mental health reasons, arguments over dogs, trespass notices, and peace bonds. The defence argued that within this toxic environment of constant legal maneuvering, the voicemail should be viewed as another salvo in their legal war rather than a criminal threat.
The Crown, represented by M. Wlodarczyk, urged the court to reject the metaphorical interpretation. They argued that when the language was considered in its proper context, it would cause any reasonable person to fear for their safety and their property. The Crown called Darcy, Andrea, and Marie-Soleil as witnesses to testify to the circumstances surrounding the threats. The prosecution emphasized that the tone and specific wording of the voicemail went beyond legal posturing and entered the realm of criminal intimidation.
In his analysis, Justice Jenner acknowledged the complex and tragic family dynamic that served as the backdrop for the case. He noted that his role was not to determine who was right or wrong in the various family disputes or to decide if the family was justified in excluding Ms. Beites from the funeral. His focus remained strictly on whether the voicemail constituted a criminal threat. He found that Ms. Beites was well aware that her family had distanced themselves from her and that the relationships were fractured.
Justice Jenner found the recording itself to be the most compelling piece of evidence. He rejected the defence’s suggestion that there was no evidence the voicemail was left in anger. The judge described the tone of voice as aggressive and hostile. Crucially, he noted that the voicemail did not contain any references to legal disputes, lawsuits, or money. Instead, the message focused entirely on the personal and emotional grievances regarding the funeral and access to grandchildren. The judge found that the repeated statements that the family had gone “too far” suggested that the dispute had reached an extreme level, signaling to a reasonable observer that the response would be similarly extreme.
The court specifically addressed the phrase “I’ll make you fucking famous.” Justice Jenner disagreed with the defence’s submission that a business-related lawsuit would make someone famous in the way implied by the voicemail. The judge reasoned that being the victim of a violent crime, such as arson, was a much better fit for the threat of making someone “famous” in this context. This interpretation undermined the defence’s theory that the accused was merely discussing civil litigation strategy.
Justice Jenner did acknowledge that the word “burn” can have colloquial meanings other than setting a fire. He noted it can suggest other forms of retribution or even a state of being “burnt out.” Similarly, saying someone is “going down” does not automatically imply physical harm. However, the judge explained that ambiguity in language does not automatically create a reasonable doubt. Ambiguity must be evaluated in context. The court recognized that ambiguous or “veiled” threats are often used as tools to achieve intimidation while attempting to insulate the speaker from accountability. The receiver of such a threat is left guessing about the perpetrator’s true intentions, which can heighten the sense of fear and intimidation.
Ultimately, the court found that the context of the voicemail cleared up any ambiguity. Justice Jenner concluded that Ms. Beites was angry and upset about her ostracization and wanted to ensure her son knew there would be consequences. By invoking the violent language of fire and making vulgar statements, she intended to intimidate Darcy, Andrea, and Marie-Soleil. The judge found that she absolutely intended to be taken seriously.
The court rejected the inference that Ms. Beites was merely stating her intentions regarding a civil suit. Justice Jenner stated he harbored no reasonable doubt based on that theory. He was persuaded that a reasonable person, even one informed of the existence of the civil suits, would perceive the message as a threat of physical harm to Darcy and a threat to burn Andrea’s business.
Consequently, Justice Jenner found the Crown had met the high burden of proof for both the act and the intent. The theory advanced by the accused was dismissed as inconsistent with the evidence provided by the recording itself. Ms. Kimberly-Ann Beites was found guilty of threatening to cause bodily harm and threatening to burn property. The conviction marks the legal conclusion to this specific chapter of the family’s ongoing conflict, though the underlying estrangement appears to remain unresolved.
Read more crime stories here.
