top of page
Search
Writer's pictureElizabete Costa

Your Right to Self-Defence in Canada: A Practical Guide



What to Know About Self-Defence Laws in Canada

Imagine walking home late at night when someone suddenly confronts you, threatening your safety. When faced with a threat and the accompanying fear, consequences and legalities are probably the last things on your mind. Your first instinct might be to defend yourself, but it’s important to consider the potential legal implications of your actions. Understanding Canada's self-defence laws is crucial—not just for your peace of mind, but for your safety and self-protection. It's important to know how the law defines self-defence so that if you ever find yourself in such a situation, you know how to protect yourself while acting within the law.


Self-Defence in Canada: What You Need to Know

In Canada, self-defence is governed by Section 34 of the Criminal Code. This law permits the use of reasonable force to defend yourself or others if you believe it's necessary to prevent imminent harm. However, the term "reasonable" is crucial—it's not a free pass to use violence in any situation. The law is designed to protect you, but it also sets boundaries to prevent unnecessary or excessive force.


When the courts evaluate a self-defence claim, the focus is on whether the force used was reasonable given the circumstances. This evaluation isn't just about what you felt in that moment; it also considers what the court, with a full view of the facts, deems appropriate. The law carefully balances your right to protect yourself with the need to prevent acts of excessive violence.


Key Elements of a Self-Defence Claim

To successfully claim self-defence, three key elements must be established:

  1. Perception of Threat: You must have a reasonable belief that force was necessary to defend yourself or someone else from an imminent threat. For instance, if someone approaches you aggressively with a weapon, it's reasonable to perceive that a threat is imminent.

  2. Proportionality: The force you use must be proportionate to the threat. For example, if someone threatens you with their fists, responding with the lethal force of a weapon might be considered excessive unless you genuinely believed your life was in extreme danger.

  3. No Reasonable Alternative: The courts will consider whether you had other options, such as retreating or calling for help. If there were viable alternatives to using force, your claim of self-defence might be weakened.


Canadian Citizens’ Right to Self-Defence

As mentioned, Canadian citizens have the inherent right to protect themselves and their property, but this right is upheld only when the actions taken are both reasonable and proportional to the situation at hand.


To decide if a response was reasonable, Section 34(2) of the Criminal Code lists factors to consider. It’s not just about looking at things objectively; you also need to evaluate how the accused perceived the situation and whether their view was reasonable. Factors to consider include:


  • The kind of force or threat involved

  • The immediacy of the threat and whether there were other ways to handle it

  • The person's role in the situation

  • Whether anyone used or threatened to use a weapon

  • The sizes, ages, genders, and physical abilities of everyone involved

  • Whether the response was reasonable and matched the level of threat or force

  • Whether the action taken was in response to a threat or force that the person knew was legal


A Real-Life Example

Consider a scenario where you return home to find an intruder in your house. The intruder threatens you, and in a moment of panic, you grab a kitchen knife to protect yourself. The law acknowledges your right to defend yourself within your home, but it also requires that the force you use be reasonable. If the intruder tries to flee and you continue to chase them and use force, your actions may no longer be viewed as self-defence, but rather as an excessive response.


The 2021 case of R. v. Khill serves as a pivotal example of the complexities surrounding self-defence claims in Canada. On a February night in 2016, Peter Khill, a 26-year-old Hamilton resident, awoke to noises outside his home. Grabbing his shotgun, Khill went outside and found Jonathan Styres, a 29-year-old father of two, seemingly attempting to steal his truck. Without calling 911, and believing Syres was armed, Khill confronted Styres and fired two fatal shots. Styres was found to be carrying a knife, but no firearm.


Initially, Khill was acquitted of second-degree murder in a 2018 trial, where his claim of self-defence was accepted by the jury. However, the Crown appealed this decision, and in 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered a new trial, emphasizing that the jury had not been adequately instructed on the new self-defence provisions under Section 34 of the Criminal Code. These provisions require the court to carefully assess the accused's perception of the threat, their intent, and the reasonableness of their response.


The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the decision for a retrial, emphasizing that Khill’s actions should be scrutinized in the context of his role in the incident. The Court noted that Khill had time to consider his response and could have chosen to call for help rather than confront Styres with lethal force. The second trial, held in November 2021, ended in a mistrial. Khill was officially charged with manslaughter in 2022, and a new trial was held. On December 16, 2022, a Hamilton jury found Khill guilty of manslaughter. The jury determined that Khill’s decision to arm himself and engage directly with Styres was an unreasonable and excessive use of force under the circumstances. Khill was sentenced to 8 years in prison, underscoring the importance of measured and proportionate responses in self-defence cases.


This case serves as a powerful reminder that self-defence must be measured; crossing the line into excessive force can carry life-altering consequences.


The Broader Implications

Self-defence laws in Canada are designed to protect individuals while maintaining public order. These laws allow people to defend themselves when necessary but set limits to prevent vigilantism. By regulating the use of force, the law encourages resolving disputes through legal channels rather than violence.


What Should You Do If You Need to Defend Yourself?

If you find yourself needing to defend yourself, your actions must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat you face. The courts will closely examine your perspective on the situation, so it's crucial to act carefully. If you're in immediate danger, always call the police first. After the incident, seek legal advice promptly to protect your rights and fully understand the legal aspects involved. Additionally, ensure you document everything you can about the incident—witnesses, injuries, and other evidence—as this can be vital in court.


Conclusion

Understanding your rights under Canada's self-defence laws can help you make informed decisions in dangerous situations. While the law permits you to use force to protect yourself or others, it also imposes limits to ensure that such force is used responsibly. If you're ever uncertain about your legal standing, consulting with a lawyer can provide clarity and help safeguard your rights.


For expert legal guidance on self-defence and beyond, contact us at MEC@costalaw.ca 

15 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page