Castle Law

In 2011, on the federal election campaign trial, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives promised Canadians “the right to defend their property.” The next year, after his party won a majority government, Mr. Harper rewrote Canada’s law on self-defence.

The previous version, dating back to the Liberals in 2003, stated that anyone who is unlawfully assaulted, without provocation, was “justified in repelling force by force” – but no more than necessary. The response also could not be intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Harper’s version, in the current Criminal Code, is more permissive: If a person reasonably believes force is being used against them or another person, or if they believe there’s the threat of force, their response is legal as long as it is “reasonable in the circumstances.”

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s proposed Criminal Code amendment to strengthen legal protections for Canadians defending their homes would offer no real benefit, criminal law experts say.

His demands come in light of a 44-year-old man from Lindsay, Ont., being charged for allegedly attacking a home intruder. On Friday, Poilievre pounced on the moment to suggest amending the Criminal Code so use of force against a person who illegally enters a home and poses a threat to those inside is presumed reasonable.

But criminal law experts say Canadian law already favours homeowners in home invasion cases, so Poilievre’s idea does nothing to enhance their protection from criminal charges.

You break into someone’s home you should expect to be dead.

This @PierrePoilievre & CPC initiative falls way short.

In Canada you can’t legally possess anything – bat, knife, pepper spray, firearm – for the purpose of defence.

That bat by your bed? Legal for baseball. Admit it’s for defence – you’ve committed a crime.

Fix that Pierre,… https://t.co/2yl8P6EaNZ

— DonaldBest.CA * DO NOT COMPLY (@DonaldBestCA) August 29, 2025

For a few years now, I’ve been mulling a question: should I have a baseball bat in my bedroom?

I often think about this late at night. By most standards, I live in a safe neighbourhood. Yet it seems these days there are few areas immune from break-and-enters. What if it happened in my home? What would I do? Confront the burglar in my pajamas shouting: “Get out, you rascal?” After he stopped laughing, he’d likely continue on his tour of the place to see what was worth stealing.

Canadians have the right to defend themselves during a home invasion, but those rights are not unlimited, says a Toronto’s based criminal attorney.

Lawyer Kim Schofield says many people misunderstand how Canada’s law works when it comes to self-defence and use of force.

“You can do anything that’s reasonable in the circumstances, not anything you want,” Schofield said in an interview with CTV Your Morning.

“It really is context-based.”

Context? As in I contexted the intruder to death?

The legal use of force to defend yourself extends back to the beginning of human civilization. However, significant differences have arisen in different legal systems over how much force is justified and in what circumstances.

Modern-day Canada and the United States have some overlap in legal use of force for self-defence but differ significantly when it comes to the castle doctrine, a law adopted in some U.S. states allowing use of lethal force in protecting one’s home and, in some cases, property such as vehicles.