Canadian Self Defence Law

1. The Twin Myths

a. “In Canada, you cannot legally defend yourself from assault or you will end up
in jail”
b. “In Canada, you can legally do whatever you want and call it self defence as
long as they swing first.”

2. Self Defence (“SD”) as a Charter Right: S.7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms reads:
“7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the
right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of
fundamental justice.”

3. EVERY​ Use of Force (“UOF”) incident is a violation of someone else’s Charter rights. Every
time you hurt or threaten to hurt someone by word or by deed, you are considered to have
committed an offence.

There are severe criminal and civil penalties for violent offences (including the Excessive Use
of Force).

Canadian Law deems some uses of force as justifiable, either for the purpose of defending
yourself and others, or as necessary for the administration of the law.

4. Enough Rope to Hang Yourself: By Claiming Self Defence, you are ​admitting​ to the
prosecutor, the jury, and the judge that you used violent force against another
person- an act which ​CONSTITUTES AN OFFENCE​ in Canadian law.

That means you ​COMMITED A CRIME

Now, you have to explain ​WHY IT WAS JUSTIFIED

5. Citizen’s Arrest and Self-Defence Act

C.C.C. S.34
(1) A person​ ​is not​ guilty of an offence i​ f
(a) they believe on​ reasonable grounds​ that force is being used
against them or another person or that a threat of force is
being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed ​for the
purpose of defending and protecting​ themselves or the
other person from that use or threat of force; and
(c) the act committed is ​reasonable in the circumstances
(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the
circumstances the court may consider ​among other factors
(a) The nature of the force or threat;
(b) The extent to which the use of force was imminent and
whether there were other means available to respond to the
potential use of force;
(c) The person’s role in the incident;
 (d) Whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a
weapon;
(e) The size, age and gender of the parties to the incident;
(f) The nature, duration, and history of any relationship between
the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of
force and the nature of that force or threat;
(g) The nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the
use or threat of force; and
(h) Whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat
of force that the person knew was lawful.
(3) ​Subsection (1) does not apply​ if the force is used or threatened by another
person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by
law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who
commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the
other person is acting unlawfully

6. Defence of Property
C.C.C. S.35
(1)A person is ​not guilty of an offence​ ​IF
(a) They either believe on​ reasonable grounds​ that they are in
peaceable possession of property or are acting under the authority of,
or lawfully assisting, a person whom they believe on reasonable
grounds is in peaceable possession of property;
(b) They believe on​ reasonable grounds​ that another person
(i) Is about to enter, is entering or has entered the property
without being entitled by law to do so
(ii) Is about to take the property, is doing so or has just done so, or
(iii) Is about to damage the property, or make it inoperative, or is
doing so;
(c) the act that constitutes the offence is committed ​for the purpose​ of
(i) Preventing the other person from entering the property, or
removing that person from the property, or
(ii) Preventing the other person from taking, damaging or
destroying the property or from making it inoperative, or
retaking the property from that person; and
(d) The act committed is ​reasonable in the circumstances​.

7. Protection of Persons Acting Under Authority

C.C.C. S.25
(1) Every one​ who is required ​or authorized ​by law to do anything in the administration
or enforcement of the law
(a) As a private person​,
(b) As a peace officer or public officer,
(c) In aid of a peace officer or public officer, or
(d) By virtue of his office,
 Is, if he acts on ​reasonable grounds​, justified in doing what he is required or
authorized to do and in using as much force as is ​necessary​ for that purpose
(3) ​Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a person is ​not​ justified for the purposes
of subsection (1) in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous
bodily harm ​unless​ the person believes on ​reasonable grounds​ that it is
necessary​ for the self-preservation of the person or the preservation of any one
under that person’s protection from death or grievous bodily harm.

8. Excessive Force
C.C.C. S.26
Every one who is authorized by law to use force is ​criminally responsible​ for any
excess thereof according to the ​nature and quality​ of the act that constitutes the excess

9. Moral and legal challenge comes in determining “reasonable” and “necessary”.

10. Use of Force Models (UOFM), Use of Force Continuums

- Tool used by many LE agencies, militaries, PSCs and self defence trainers
- Developed originally for law enforcement
- Graphical models meant to illustrate appropriate levels of force to employ against
changing levels of subject aggression
- Often employ a “One Plus” model of escalation
- Often perceived as linear in structure
11. Limitations of linear UoFCs
- May differ greatly/be contradictory from model to model
- Can Cause rigidity of thought/perception
- Can actually cause defenders to use inappropriate levels of force (too much
OR too little)
- Can be used against defender in court by implying a natural progression to
force, requiring defender to start at “bottom”
- Rarely take into account totality of circumstances
12. Canadian National Use of Force Framework (NUFF)
- Not a continuum
- Merely a graphical representation of the dynamic flow of a UoF incident
- Requires constant assessment based on totality of circumstances
Canadian National Use of Force Framework

13. NUFF was designed to ask the question:

“How would a ​reasonable and competent​ person react in the same ​totality of
circumstances?
14. Assessing Totality of Circumstances
Affecting the defender’s perception of the need for force are several factors which are
provided for in the Citizen’s Arrest and Self Defence Act 2012, which draws on the
principles laid out in the NUFF:
- Situational factors
- Subject behaviours
- Defender’s perceptions, and
- Tactical considerations
15. C.C.C. S. 34 (2)
(a) The nature of the force or threat:
- Verbal threat, or body language?
- Social v. asocial violence?
- Threat display?
- Sexual element to force or threat of force?
- Actions constitute assaultive behaviour?
- IS there a risk of grievous bodily harm or death?
- Why/How do you know?
(b) The extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there
were other means available to respond to the potential use of force:
- Time/Distance
- Possibility, and potential consequences, of disengagement
- Availability of cover, “backup”
- Geographical considerations (weather, visibility, isolation, altitude, footing,
familiarity, escape routes, availability of weapons, presence of other risks).
(c) The person’s role in the incident;
- Were you the original attacker? The attacked?
- Was this a consensual fight?
- Who started is?
- How did it begin (insults? threats?)
- Was either party using force as required/permitted for the purpose of
enforcing the law?
(d) Whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon:
- Is the threat verbal, or by action (ie., saying “I’m going to stab you,” vs.,
brandishing or reaching for an actual weapon?
- Are weapons being carried that you can see (improvised or otherwise)?
- Reaching into pockets/jackets
- Subject “palming” something
- Are weapons of opportunity readily available in the vicinity?
- Is the attacker known to the defender to carry weapons?
(e) The size, age and gender of the parties to the incident:
- Strength/Fitness level
- Personal experience/fears
- skills/ability/training
- fatigue/injury/illness
- Critical incident stress symptoms
- sight/vision
(f) The nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties
to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature
of that force or threat;
- Do you know the attacker?
- What do you know about them?
- Are they prone to violence?
- Do you know or reasonably suspect that they own or carry weapons?
- Has this been a pattern of violence?
- Do you have reason to fear further or greater violence, beyond what might be
obvious to an outside observer?
(g) The nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or
threat of force; and
- Can/do you employ a “one plus” response? If not, why not?
 - Was your defensive action preemptive? If so, why?
- What other known or reasonably suspected factors contribute to your
decision?”
- Do you stop using force when the threat is over?
- What communication do you use during the incident? (ie., “Stop, I don’t want
to fight!” vs. “I’m gonna fuck you up!!!”)
(h) Whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force
that the person knew was lawful
- Again: ​IF YOU KNOW OR SUSPECT THAT A PERSON HAS A LEGAL
RIGHT TO USE OR THREATEN FORCE, YOU HAVE NO DEFENCE
16. Reasonable Use of Force is:
a. Your perception,
b. Based upon the totality of circumstances, and
c. Your responsibility to justify/articulate in court.
17. SUMMARY: In Canada you have the right to defend yourself, and others, from the
use or threat of force, if it is necessary:
- In a reasonable and responsible manner
- As long as you do not use force that is excessive, malicious, or punitive, and
- As long as you stop using force once the threat is ended