Skip to main content 
In Canada you may defend yourself, another person or property you peaceably possess, and you may arrest someone you find committing a crime on or in relation to your property, but only by doing what is reasonable in the circumstances. Self-defence is Criminal Code s. 34, defence of property is s. 35 and the citizen’s arrest is s. 494. All three were rewritten by the Citizen’s Arrest and Self-defence Act, which has been in force since March 11, 2013.
On June 28th, 2012, Bill C-26 (also known as) the Citizen’s Arrest and Self-defence Act, received Royal Assent and came into force on March 11th, 2013. The bill has expanded on the citizen’s arrest powers and reformed the law with respect to the self-defence and defence of property provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada. It is now S.C. 2012, c. 9, and ss. 34, 35 and 494 have not been amended since. This article explains how each rule works today, and why a person attacked in their own home is not required to flee it.
- Self-defence
- Section 34A reasonable act to defend yourself or another person from force or a threat of force
- Defence of property
- Section 35A reasonable act by a person in peaceable possession
- Citizen’s arrest
- Section 494At the time, or within a reasonable time for offences on your property
- Retreat from your home
- Not requiredR v Docherty, 2012 ONCA 784
How does self-defence work in Canada?
One test now covers every kind of self-defence, from a shove to deadly force.
Bill C-26 also changes the self-defence provisions of the Criminal Code. Sections 34-37 of the Code have been repealed and replaced by one new self-defence provision. The amendment now permits a person who reasonably believes themselves or others to be at risk of the threat of force, or of acts of force, to commit a reasonable act to protect themselves or others (s. 34(1)).
Prior to these amendments, the self-defence provisions dealt with a person who used force to protect himself or another from assault depending on various aspects of the particular situation, such as whether they provoked the attack or not and whether they intended to use deadly force. The new amendments clarify and streamline our self-defence laws by no longer requiring the accused to pigeonhole his actions into one of the many (and often confusing) self-defence sections in the Criminal Code.
In deciding whether the act was reasonable, the court must consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including (s. 34(2)):
- (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, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;
- (f)the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties, including any prior use or threat of force;
- (f.1)any history of interaction or communication between the parties;
- (g)the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and
- (h)whether the act was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.
The Supreme Court of Canada explained the test in R v Khill, 2021 SCC 37. The list is not exhaustive, the factors are weighed together, and no single one is necessarily decisive. “The person’s role in the incident” covers what the accused did from the beginning of the incident to the end, and is not limited to unlawful or provocative conduct. In Khill, a homeowner woken at 3 a.m. took a loaded shotgun outside to confront a man breaking into his truck and shot him. The jury acquitted, but the Supreme Court upheld the order for a new trial because the jury had not been told to consider his role in the incident, including the alternatives open to him before he left the house.
Self-defence does not protect force used against someone who is doing what the law requires or authorizes them to do in enforcing the law, such as a police officer making a lawful arrest, unless you believe on reasonable grounds that they are acting unlawfully (s. 34(3)).
Can you use force to protect your property?
Amendments to the defence of property provisions have also repealed sections 38-42 of the Criminal Code in favour of one new defence of property provision. The new provision permits a person in “peaceable possession” of a property to commit a reasonable act (including the use of force) for the purpose of protecting that property from being taken, damaged or trespassed upon (s. 35).
Peaceable possession
Who can rely on it
You must believe on reasonable grounds that you are in peaceable possession of the property, or be acting under the authority of, or lawfully assisting, someone you reasonably believe is (s. 35(1)(a)).
A real interference
What triggers it
You believe on reasonable grounds that someone is entering or has entered without legal right, is taking or has just taken the property, or is damaging, destroying or disabling it (s. 35(1)(b)).
A reasonable act
What you may do
You act to keep the person out or remove them, or to stop the taking or damage or take the property back, and what you do is reasonable in the circumstances (s. 35(1)(c)–(d)).
Two limits apply. The defence is not available to a possessor with no claim of right against someone legally entitled to the property (s. 35(2)), and, as with self-defence, it does not protect acts against a person lawfully enforcing the law unless you believe on reasonable grounds they are acting unlawfully (s. 35(3)). See our article on when police can enter your home.
When is deadly force allowed in self-defence?
Despite the significant changes to the law of self-defence and defence of property, Bill C-26 did not create a new rule for deadly force. It removed the old one: under the former s. 34(2), causing death or grievous bodily harm was justified only under a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm. That is no longer a separate legal requirement. Instead, the nature of the threat and the proportionality of the response are factors in deciding whether the act was reasonable (s. 34(2)(a) and (g)), and Justice Canada’s guide to the new law describes proportionality as “a highly relevant consideration.”
In Canadian law, the use of deadly force is only permitted in very exceptional circumstances – for example, where it is necessary to protect a person from death or grievous bodily harm. Canadian courts have clearly stated that deadly force is not considered reasonable in defence of property alone. Justice Canada’s technical guide to the 2012 reforms puts it the same way: courts “have unambiguously held that it is not reasonable to use deadly force in defence of property alone,” where there is no simultaneous threat to anyone’s life or safety. A threat inside a home usually does involve personal danger, which is why self-defence in the home is treated differently.
If someone died or was seriously hurt. These cases are usually charged as murder or manslaughter or aggravated assault, and self-defence is decided by a judge or jury on all of the evidence. Speak to a lawyer before you give a statement.
Is a citizen’s arrest legal in Canada?
Yes, within limits set by Criminal Code s. 494. Anyone may arrest without a warrant a person they find committing an indictable offence, or a person they believe on reasonable grounds has committed a criminal offence and is escaping from, and being freshly pursued by, people with lawful authority to arrest them (s. 494(1)).
Looking first at the changes to the citizen’s arrest power, Bill C-26 has amended section 494(2) of the Code by authorizing a private citizen to make an arrest within a reasonable period of time after he or she finds someone committing a criminal offence that occurred on or in relation to their property. This expanded power of arrest is authorised only where there are reasonable grounds to believe it is not feasible for a police officer to make the arrest. The power belongs to the owner or a person in lawful possession of the property, or someone they authorize, such as an employee or security guard.
The amendments to the section now eliminate the requirement that the offender be arrested in the criminal act: the owner must still find the person committing the offence, but the arrest can follow as long as he/she is apprehended within a reasonable time after the offence is committed.
After the arrest. A private citizen who makes an arrest must deliver the person to a peace officer forthwith (s. 494(3)). Someone lawfully making the arrest may use as much force as is necessary, acting on reasonable grounds, but not force intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless they believe on reasonable grounds it is needed to protect themselves or someone under their protection from death or grievous bodily harm (s. 25(1) and (3); s. 494(4)). An arrest that goes beyond the power can itself lead to charges such as assault.
A separate rule, s. 27, lets anyone use as much force as is reasonably necessary to prevent an offence that could be met with an arrest without warrant and that would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to a person or property. Store owners who detain a suspected shoplifter are relying on s. 494(2); see our page on theft and shoplifting charges.
Do you have to retreat from your own home before defending yourself?
No. On November 19, 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its ruling in R. v. Docherty, 2012 ONCA 784. The central issue in Docherty was whether the trial judge improperly instructed the jury that a person under attack has a duty to retreat from their home in order to assert a legitimate claim of self-defence.
Facts:
Kenneth Docherty killed Tyson Weber by stabbing him seven times in the neck during an altercation inside the garage attached to Docherty’s home. There was considerable evidence that Weber and an associate were loan sharks trying to collect a significant amount of money from Docherty, although Docherty’s position was that he owed them nothing and was being extorted. In their attempts to collect, the men would threaten Docherty, telling him that they would beat him up or kill him if he didn’t pay them.
On the day of the stabbing, Weber came to Docherty’s home in a final attempt to collect the money he and his associate said they were owed. In the garage, Weber grabbed Docherty by the shirt and threatened to break his legs. It was during this final interaction that Docherty stabbed and killed Weber.
During the trial, the Crown relied on a statement Docherty made to the police within hours of the killing in which he admitted intentionally killing Weber but asserted that he had acted in self-defence and that he feared his life was in danger. At the close of Docherty’s trial, both the Crown Attorney and the Judge told the jury that Docherty’s failure to retreat from his own home was a factor they could consider in determining whether or not he acted in self-defence.
The ruling:
The question for the Ontario Court of Appeal to decide was whether there exists a duty to retreat from one’s own home in the face of an attack?
In a unanimous ruling which overturned the conviction for manslaughter, the Court of Appeal concluded that no such duty to retreat from one’s home exists at law. It set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial on the manslaughter charge. Citing some of the Court’s earlier decisions, notably R v Forde, 2011 ONCA 592, they affirmed that while self-defence can typically be accepted only as defence of last resort and is not available where other reasonable options are available, different considerations apply where a person is attacked within his or her own home.
In that situation, the ancient common law castle doctrine gives rise to the principle that a person has the right to defend him or herself in his or her own home without the duty to retreat from the home in the face of an attack.
The castle doctrine rests on the idea that the home provides protection for a person, his family and his possessions and that mandating a duty to retreat would force people to leave the security of their home, leaving their family members exposed to danger and their belongings vulnerable to theft. The castle doctrine also involves the idea that one’s home is the last refuge, the last line of self-defence.
The Court did suggest that it will still be open to the judge or jury to consider what other steps were taken by the person under attack within the home to avoid confrontation but that retreating from the house is not required to assert a valid self-defence claim. The Court warned that the word “retreat” should not be used to describe those other steps, because it suggests abandoning the home.
Under today’s s. 34. Docherty applied the old s. 34(2). The Court noted that Bill C-26 “makes no explicit reference to retreat,” but lists “whether there were other means available to respond” as a factor (now s. 34(2)(b)). In Khill, the Supreme Court said that phrase captures a broader range of alternatives than retreat, and that it is one factor among many, never a requirement on its own. The Code does not mention the home.
Self-defence is one of several defences available to someone facing an assault charge. To learn more about self-defence, read: how the self-defence test works, above.
Self-defence, defence of property or citizen’s arrest: which rule applies?
| Situation | Where it comes from | What the law requires |
|---|---|---|
| Defending yourself or another person | Criminal Code s. 34 | A reasonable belief that force or a threat of force is being used, a defensive purpose, and a reasonable act |
| Protecting property | s. 35 | Peaceable possession, a reasonable belief the property is being entered, taken or damaged, and a reasonable act |
| Arresting someone in the act | s. 494(1)(a), (2)(a) | You find the person committing the offence |
| Arresting later, for an offence on your property | s. 494(2)(b) | A reasonable time after the offence, and reasonable grounds that police cannot feasibly make the arrest |
| Preventing a serious offence | s. 27 | Force reasonably necessary to stop an offence likely to cause immediate and serious injury |
| Force by a person enforcing the law | s. 25 | Acting on reasonable grounds, and only as much force as is necessary |
Why Choose Daniel Brown Law?
Daniel Brown Law is a leading Canadian criminal defence firm. Self-defence cases are won on the detail of what happened, and our lawyers build that record from the first day.
A nationally recognized defence firm
An award-winning reputation in criminal defence and appellate advocacy: ranked among Canada’s top criminal law boutiques by Canadian Lawyer, listed for criminal defence by The Globe and Mail and Best Law Firms, and voted Best Law Firm and Best Legal Services by Toronto Star readers.
Self-defence at trial
Every s. 34 factor is a question of evidence: the threat, the history between the parties, the alternatives, the response. We gather the evidence that answers each one and put it before the judge or jury.
Advice before you speak
If you used force to protect yourself, your family or your property, our lawyers can advise you before you give a statement to police, and defend you if a charge follows.
Recognized by the profession and the public
Daniel Brown Law is ranked among Canada’s top criminal law boutiques by Canadian Lawyer, listed by The Globe and Mail and Best Law Firms for criminal defence, and voted Best Legal Services by Toronto Star readers. Five of its lawyers are recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada for criminal defence.
Best Law Firms: Criminal Law
The Globe and Mail, 2026
Top Criminal Law Boutique
Canadian Lawyer, 2026–27
Criminal Defence, Tier 1
Best Law Firms Canada, 2026
Best Lawyers in Canada
Criminal Defence, 2027
Toronto Star Readers’ Choice
Best Law Firm and Best Legal Services, repeat winner
Crime, Nationwide
Chambers Canada, 2027
The firm and its lawyers have been repeatedly recognized for excellence in criminal defence:
- Canada’s Best Law Firms 2026 — The Globe and Mail (Report on Business)
- Canada’s Top Criminal Law Boutiques 2026–27 — Canadian Lawyer Magazine
- Best Law Firms 2026 — Criminal Defence and Appellate Practice (Best Lawyers / Best Law Firms)
- Best Lawyers in Canada — Criminal Defence — Daniel Brown, Hilary Dudding, Mark Halfyard, Lindsay Board and Colleen McKeown
- Toronto Star Readers’ Choice Awards — Best Law Firm and Best Legal Services, repeat winner
- Chambers Canada 2027 — ranked for Crime, nationwide, by Chambers and Partners
- Certified Specialists in Criminal Law — Law Society of Ontario (Daniel Brown and Mark Halfyard — fewer than 2% of Ontario criminal lawyers hold this designation)
Self-Defence and Citizen’s Arrest — Frequently Asked Questions
Short answers to the questions people ask about defending themselves, their home and their property.
Self-defence
What is the law of self-defence in Canada?
Section 34 of the Criminal Code. You are not guilty of an offence if you believed on reasonable grounds that force or a threat of force was being used against you or someone else, you acted to defend or protect yourself or them, and what you did was reasonable in the circumstances. The court weighs the factors listed in s. 34(2) to decide reasonableness.
Do you have to retreat before using force in self-defence?
There is no rule that you must retreat. Whether there were other means available to respond is one factor in deciding whether your act was reasonable (s. 34(2)(b)), weighed with the others; no single factor is decisive (R v Khill, 2021 SCC 37).
Do you have to leave your home if you are attacked there?
No. In R v Docherty, 2012 ONCA 784, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that there is no duty to retreat from your own home in the face of an attack, and ordered a new trial because the jury had been told Mr. Docherty’s failure to retreat was a factor. A judge or jury may still consider other steps you could have taken inside the home to avoid the confrontation.
What does “the person’s role in the incident” mean?
It is the factor in s. 34(2)(c). The Supreme Court held in Khill that it covers everything the accused did from the beginning of the incident to the end that bears on whether the final act was reasonable, and is not limited to unlawful or provocative conduct.
Can you defend yourself against a police officer?
Not against an officer doing what the law requires or authorizes, unless you believe on reasonable grounds the officer is acting unlawfully (ss. 34(3) and 35(3)). Whether an officer acted lawfully is often decided later, in court, so physical resistance is risky.
Property and deadly force
Can you use force to protect your property?
Yes, if you are in peaceable possession of it, you reasonably believe someone is entering it, taking it or damaging it, you act to stop that or to remove them, and your act is reasonable in the circumstances (s. 35).
Can you use deadly force to protect your property?
No. Canadian courts have held that deadly force is not reasonable in defence of property alone, where no one’s life or safety is also threatened. A threat inside a home often does endanger the people in it, and then self-defence under s. 34 applies.
Did the 2013 reforms change the rules on deadly force?
They removed the old rule that only a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm could justify causing death or grievous bodily harm. Deadly force is now judged under the same reasonableness test as any other act, with the nature of the threat and proportionality as listed factors (s. 34(2)(a) and (g)). It remains permitted only in very exceptional circumstances.
Citizen’s arrest
Is a citizen’s arrest legal in Canada?
Yes. Anyone may arrest a person found committing an indictable offence, or a person they reasonably believe has committed a criminal offence and is being freshly pursued by people with authority to arrest. Property owners and their authorized agents have a wider power for offences on or in relation to their property (Criminal Code s. 494).
Can a store owner arrest a shoplifter?
Yes. The owner, a person in lawful possession of the property, or someone they authorize, may arrest a person found committing a criminal offence on or in relation to it, either at the time or within a reasonable time afterward if it is not feasible for police to make the arrest (s. 494(2)).
How much force can you use in a citizen’s arrest?
As much as is necessary, acting on reasonable grounds (s. 25(1), s. 494(4)). Force intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm is not justified unless you believe on reasonable grounds it is necessary to protect yourself or someone under your protection from death or grievous bodily harm (s. 25(3)).
What do you have to do after making a citizen’s arrest?
Deliver the person to a peace officer forthwith (s. 494(3)). Holding someone longer, or arresting without the power to do so, can lead to charges against you.
The 2012 reforms
When did the Citizen’s Arrest and Self-defence Act come into force?
It received Royal Assent on June 28, 2012 and came into force on March 11, 2013 (S.C. 2012, c. 9; SI/2013-5). It replaced ss. 34 to 42 of the Criminal Code with the current ss. 34 and 35 and amended s. 494. Those sections have not been amended since.
Is self-defence a defence to an assault charge?
Yes. Self-defence is one of several defences available to someone facing an assault charge. If it is raised on the evidence, the Crown must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt (R v Khill, 2021 SCC 37).
Charges we defend
Learn more about some of the charges we defend. We defend more than what we have written blog articles about.
- Assault
- Bail hearings
- Bail pending appeal
- Coercive control
- Criminal appeals
- Criminal harassment
- Dangerous driving
- Distributing an intimate image
- Domestic assault
- Drug possession
- Drug trafficking
- Extradition
- Fail to appear at court
- Fail to comply with bail
- Failing to remain at the scene
- Firearm and weapon possession
- Forcible confinement
- Fraud
- Impaired driving
- Importing drugs
- Mischief
- Murder and manslaughter
- Obstruct police
- Peace bonds
- Public mischief
- Refusing a breath sample
- Robbery
- Sexual assault
- Sexual exploitation
- Theft and shoplifting
- Uttering threats
- Voyeurism
- Young offenders
Charged after defending yourself? Talk to Daniel Brown Law
Self-defence turns on the details, and the first statement you give can shape the case. To arrange a confidential consultation with Daniel Brown Law, contact our team or call our office at (416) 297-7200.
Phone: (416) 297-7200
Office: Daniel Brown Law, 400–103 Church St., Toronto, ON M5C 2G3