Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s proposal to amend the Criminal Code to bolster legal protections for Canadians defending their homes may not provide any tangible advantages, according to experts in criminal law. The call for this amendment follows the recent case of a 44-year-old man from Lindsay, Ont., who faced charges for allegedly confronting a home intruder. Poilievre seized the opportunity on Friday to suggest altering the Criminal Code to presume the use of force against an intruder entering a home unlawfully and posing a threat to those inside as reasonable.
However, experts in criminal law argue that Canadian legislation already leans in favor of homeowners in instances of home invasions, rendering Poilievre’s proposal ineffective in improving their safeguarding against criminal allegations. Noah Weisbord, a law professor at McGill University specializing in self-defense cases involving the use of force, explained that the burden lies on the prosecution to convincingly demonstrate that the force used against an intruder was disproportionate.
Section 34 of the Criminal Code outlines the parameters for self-defense and the defense of others. Individuals are not guilty of an offense if they have reasonable grounds to believe that force is being used against them or another person. The defensive action must aim to protect themselves and must be reasonable considering the circumstances. When evaluating the prospect of a conviction, the Crown reviews various evidence, including physical evidence and testimonies.
Kim Schofield, a criminal defense lawyer, expressed concerns that Poilievre’s suggested amendment could potentially endanger the public by not providing clarity or simplicity. She highlighted the dangers of presuming reasonableness in such cases, emphasizing the importance of acting reasonably under the Criminal Code.
Weisbord warned against adopting laws similar to Florida’s Stand Your Ground statute, which grants legal immunity to individuals who use force, including deadly force, in self-defense. He cautioned that such laws could disproportionately impact marginalized communities, citing the case of Gerald Stanley in Saskatchewan as an example of potential risks associated with implementing such legislation in Canada.
