Self-defence in Canada
The legal spine in one page
Self-defence in Canada is simple to say and hard to apply. Three pillars hold it up.
Defence of the person. You are not guilty if you believed on reasonable grounds that force or a threat of force was being used against you or another person, you acted for the purpose of protecting, and what you did was reasonable in the circumstances. The Code lists factors a court must weigh, including imminence, other options, weapons, size and strength, history between the parties, proportionality, and your role in the incident. There is no pure duty to run away, but whether you could safely disengage is a factor.
Defence of property. You can act to keep someone out, remove them, stop them from taking or wrecking property, or retake it, but only if you had peaceable possession and your response was reasonable. This defence ends fast if the other person is actually entitled to the property or is a lawful authority.
Preventing an offence. Anyone may use only as much force as reasonably necessary to prevent an indictable or hybrid offence that would likely cause immediate and serious injury to people or property.
Two more rules matter in the real world.
Citizen’s arrest. You can arrest a person you find committing an indictable offence, or arrest for an offence on or in relation to your property at the time or within a reasonable time if police cannot reasonably do it. You must deliver the person to police without delay. This is risky. If you misjudge it, your own use of force is on trial.
Weapons law. Possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose, carrying a concealed weapon, or carrying most prohibited devices is criminal. Pepper spray made for use on people, mace, and similar sprays are prohibited weapons by regulation. Bear spray is legal to buy for animal defence, but carrying it for use on people or using it on a person can land you in Criminal Code trouble.
Key modern cases show how courts think.
• R v Khill. The Supreme Court said juries must look at the full role of the accused in the incident when judging reasonableness. Training, choices that led to the confrontation, and split second perceptions all matter. The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.
• R v Lavallee and R v Pétel. The Court recognized how history of abuse and prior threats shape a person’s perception of danger and necessity. Reasonableness is judged in that lived context.
• R v Jobidon. Consent is not a defence to intentional fights that cause non trivial bodily harm. Mutual combat will not rescue excessive force.
That is the spine. Everything below is muscle and skin.
Ground rules you can apply under stress
Reasonableness is the test. Courts ask: what did you honestly believe at the time and were your actions the minimum needed to stop the threat. They will weigh imminence, proportionality, your options, your size and training compared to the other person, the presence of weapons, and the past between you.
Defence stops when the threat stops. If the person is running away or prone and no longer a threat, continuing to hit or chase usually destroys the defence.
You can defend others on the same terms. The test is still reasonableness.
Property is secondary to safety. Force to protect property is tightly capped. You cannot set traps, you cannot punish, and you cannot use force against someone who is lawfully entitled to the thing.
You can act first when danger is truly imminent. You do not have to wait to be hit, but you must be able to explain why you believed an assault was seconds away.
Preventing serious offences permits intervention, but still only the least force needed.
Citizen’s arrests are lawful but legally hazardous. If you are wrong about the offence or use more force than needed, you wear the consequences.
Carrying weapons for self-defence is a trap. If your purpose is to have it as a weapon, you risk charges. Pepper spray made for use on people is prohibited. Bear spray on a city belt for people is a bad idea legally.
Thirty real scenarios with outcomes that map to the Code
On the street and in transit
Wrist grab at a bus stop. A stranger grabs your forearm and demands your phone. You rip free and push them off to create space, then step back and leave. This is a textbook reasonable response. It ends when you are safe.
Same grab, different ending. You push off, the person stumbles, you follow with three more punches while they cover up and try to disengage. The continuing blows after the threat collapses are likely excessive.
Knife demand on a sidewalk. Someone shows a knife and says give me your wallet. Throwing your bag to distract and sprinting, or striking once to break contact and running, can fit the defence. Taking the knife, then stabbing after they drop theirs and turn away, likely fails.
Sudden shove outside a bar. A person squares up and raises a fist. If you honestly believe a hit is coming, a pre emptive shove or single strike to exit can be reasonable. Staying to trade shots is where Jobidon problems and excess begin.
Multiple attackers in a parking lot. Two people circle and one reaches under a jacket. Courts give wider latitude where numbers and implied weapons raise the risk. A fast strike on the aggressor and immediate escape can remain reasonable. Stomping a downed person is not.
Train car harassment that escalates. One person corners you, blocks the door with an arm, and keeps advancing. A palm to the face, forearm frame, and movement past them to the next car stays within reason. Pursuing them after the door opens does not.
Road rage at a red light. Someone exits their vehicle and tries to open your door while yelling threats. Lock, call 911, horn blast. If glass breaks and a reach comes in, a strike to the arm and acceleration to escape is likely reasonable. Chasing them after you break free is not.
Carjacking at a gas station. A masked person shoves you aside while sliding into your driver seat. Pulling them back to the pavement to retake the car can be defence of property, but it must be brief and proportionate and ends the second they disengage. If they drive off, do not grapple with the moving vehicle.
At home and at work
Night intruder in the kitchen. You see a silhouette, they step toward you, something glints. A single hard strike with a household object that lets you back to a locked room and call police will usually align with section 34. Chasing out to the alley with a bat, no.
Intruder with a knife retreats toward the door. You hold distance with a chair, they turn and run. Striking now is almost certainly excessive. The threat has ended.
Trespasser sleeping in a shed. You can rouse and direct them to leave. You can guide them out with minimal force if they refuse. Punching for non compliance is not justified. Property defence is narrow.
Co worker grabs your shoulders in anger. You peel the hands off and step away. Reasonable. Taking them to the floor and kneeling on their neck after they back off, not reasonable.
Shopkeeper and a fleeing thief. You see a person stuffing goods and heading out. You can voice a stop, block a doorway briefly, or take a light hold. Tackling down a flight of stairs or chokeholds are unlikely to be reasonable for property alone. Citizen’s arrest is possible, but risk is high.
Contractor removing your appliance due to a bill dispute. You cannot use force. If they are lawfully entitled, property defence does not apply. Call police or your lawyer.
Domestic assault in progress next door. You hear screams and blows through the wall, you enter and pull someone off the victim and hold them until police arrive. This can fit defence of others and preventing an offence causing serious injury, but use the least force needed.
Defence of others in public
Bus stop assault on a stranger. You step in, wedge with your forearm, and hold the attacker’s arms pinned while you direct the victim to move away. This is classic minimal force. Throwing a head kick afterward is not.
Knife brandished at a friend. You push your friend behind you, toss a backpack to create space, and leave. If trapped, striking first to knock the knife arm off line can still be reasonable. Running the person down once they turn away is not.
Stranger tries to drag a child. You bear hug the adult from behind and force release, then let go when the child is safe. Reasonable under section 27 and section 34. Continuing to punch after release is hard to justify.
When history and perception matter
Target of long term threats. The same person has threatened to kill you multiple times. Tonight they reach under a seat and stand up shouting that this is the night. Courts will factor that history into whether your belief in imminent harm was reasonable. Lavallee and Pétel make clear that lived context counts.
Survivor of intimate partner violence. You face a partner who has beaten and strangled you before. They advance after a death threat. A forceful defensive act can be justified even if an outsider would ask why you did not run. The past shapes reasonableness.
Trained security guard off duty. You choose to pursue a suspected thief off the property at night, confront in a dark laneway, and then claim self-defence when it turns violent. Khill tells courts to examine your whole role in creating the peril when deciding what was reasonable.
Weapons and objects
Bottle or chair as an improvised tool. You use a bottle to parry a swing and create exit. That is consistent with section 34 if proportionate. Smashing a bottle and continuing to slash after the person goes down is not.
Carrying a knife “for protection.” If your purpose is self-defence, you invite charges such as possession for a dangerous purpose or carrying concealed. The same object in a toolbox is not the same thing as the same object taped under a car seat.
Pepper spray on a keychain. If it is made for use on people, possession is possession of a prohibited weapon. Bear spray carried for people is also a problem. The regulation squarely lists tear gas and incapacitating sprays as prohibited weapons.
Taking a bat on an evening walk. If asked why, and you say for protection, you may have just proven a dangerous purpose case. If you are coming from the batting cages, different story. Purpose matters.
Property, arrests, and stopping crimes
Blocking a shop doorway after a grab and dash. A light physical block to prevent escape while you call police can be reasonable. Throwing someone onto concrete or using a choke is not. You must hand them over to police promptly.
Preventing a serious offence. You pull a drunk away from the driver seat keys in hand. You use just enough force to stop the immediate risk. This sits within section 27.
Pursuit after a theft. The thief runs with your phone. Sprinting after them is not illegal by itself. Tackling on asphalt and kneeing the head will be judged against property defence and citizen’s arrest rules. Expect tight scrutiny on proportionality.
Taking back your own bike days later. You spot your stolen bike on a rack and try to rip it away from a rider in motion. Property defence will not help. Call police and provide proof.
Wrestling a vandal off your parked car. You control the arm holding a rock, twist the wrist, and push them back until they stop. Once the smashing ends, so does your right to keep applying force.
Extra nuances that get people charged
Proportionality. Courts will ask if your response matched the risk you faced. Strikes to escape are one thing. Strikes after someone turns away are another.
Imminence and alternatives. If danger is not imminent and you had safe options, your defence weakens. There is no rigid duty to retreat, but it matters whether you could have.
Your role in the incident. If your choices helped create the danger, that weighs against you. Khill makes that explicit.
Lawful force by police. Section 34 does not protect you from resisting lawful acts by police or other authorities unless you reasonably believe they are acting unlawfully. Do not fight with police.
Mutual fights. Agreeing to a fist fight does not give a licence to cause bodily harm. Jobidon says consent does not rescue it.
Weapons and intent. If the Crown can show your purpose in carrying an object was to use it as a weapon, section 88 problems follow even before any fight starts.
What to do after a self-defence incident
Call 911 first. Ask for medical help if anyone is hurt. Say there was an assault and you acted to protect yourself or another, then wait for counsel for detailed statements.
Identify evidence. Tell police where the weapon fell, where the struggle happened, and who saw it. Then stop talking about the facts until you have legal advice.
Do not post about it. Social media almost always hurts you.
This is practical guidance, not legal advice for your specific case. If anything like the scenarios above happens to you, speak to a criminal defence lawyer in your province.
