Canadian Self-Defence Laws: What You Can and Cannot Do (2025 Update)

Dave Suffern
Sep 30
4 min read

Self-defence is a basic human instinct. Canadians frequently ask: If I must protect myself, how far can I legally go? Could I face criminal charges even though I was acting in self-defence?

Canadian law recognizes the right to defend oneself and others, but that right is limited by the principle of reasonableness. This article explains the current legal framework, how it was modernized through Bill C-26, what “reasonable” and proportionate force mean in practice, and how courts have applied these principles in real cases.

The Legal Evolution: Bill C-26 and the 2012 Reform

Prior to 2012, Canada’s self-defence provisions were scattered across multiple sections of the Criminal Code and were often criticized as confusing. To address this, Parliament enacted Bill C-26 (Citizen’s Arrest and Self-defence Act), which came into force on March 11, 2013.

Bill C-26 consolidated and simplified the law by introducing:

Section 34 — Self-defence, and
Section 35 — Defence of property

The reform clarified that the central test for lawful self-defence is whether the force used was reasonable in the circumstances.

The Legal Basis for Self-Defence (Section 34)

Under section 34 of the Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), a person is not guilty of an offence if:

They believe, on reasonable grounds, that force is being used against them or another person, or that a threat of force is being made;
The act is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person; and
The act is reasonable in the circumstances.

All three requirements must be met. A perceived threat alone is not enough — the response must also be defensive in purpose and reasonable in nature.

What “Reasonable” Means and the Role of Proportionate Force

The word “reasonable” is not rigidly defined, because what is reasonable depends on the circumstances. Section 34(2) of the Criminal Code lists factors that courts may consider when deciding whether a person’s use of force was reasonable, including:

The nature of the threat: minor assault vs. life-threatening violence.
The imminence of the threat: immediate danger vs. potential or avoidable harm.
The person’s role in the incident: provocation or escalation.
The presence and use of weapons.
Relative size, age, gender, and physical capabilities of those involved.
The history between the parties: patterns of threats or violence.
The availability of alternatives: whether retreat or disengagement was possible.

A key aspect of this assessment is proportionate force. Proportionate force means using only the amount of force necessary to stop or prevent the harm — and no more. It must be sufficient to neutralize the danger but no greater than necessary.

Defence of Property (Section 35)

Section 35 of the Criminal Code allows a person in “peaceable possession” of property to use reasonable force to prevent unlawful entry or to remove a trespasser.

However:

Excessive or deadly force cannot be justified to protect property alone.
Force may only escalate where unlawful entry also creates a threat to life or safety.

Case Law Examples

R. v. Khill (2021 SCC 37)

A former Canadian Forces reservist was charged after fatally shooting a man who attempted to enter his truck at night. The Supreme Court of Canada clarified that the reasonableness of self-defence must be assessed contextually, considering not just the presence of a threat but also alternatives available, the imminence of the threat, and whether the response was proportionate. Khill was ultimately ordered to face a new trial, showing how courts closely scrutinize the “reasonableness” of lethal force, even in cases of home intrusion.

R. v. Bengy (2015 ONCA 397)

The Ontario Court of Appeal reaffirmed that subjective belief is not enough; there must also be objective reasonableness. The accused claimed he believed he needed to use force, but the court stressed that the belief must be grounded in what a reasonable person would conclude in the same circumstances.

R. v. Kandola (2016 BCSC 2350)

In this British Columbia case, the court emphasized the proportionality of response. The accused argued self-defence after a confrontation escalated, but the judge noted that once the threat subsided, continued use of force could no longer be justified. This highlights the principle that force must stop when the threat stops.

R. v. Gunning (2005 SCC 27)

While decided under the pre-2012 law, the Supreme Court stressed the importance of the objective reasonableness standard in self-defence, laying groundwork that carried into Bill C-26’s simplified provisions.

Common Misconceptions and Legal Limits

Carrying weapons for self-defence is unlawful. Pepper spray, tasers, brass knuckles, and firearms cannot be carried for self-defence purposes.
Excessive force is unlawful. Continuing to use force after the threat has ended is likely to result in charges.
Deadly force is rarely lawful. It is only justified where life or safety is in imminent danger and lesser force would not suffice.

What Canadians Can Lawfully Do

Within these limits, Canadians may:

Use proportionate physical force to stop an assault.
Employ improvised objects when necessary and reasonable.
Defend others who are at imminent risk.
Protect their home, when safety is directly threatened, within the boundaries of proportionality.

Why Training Matters — The Krav Maga Connection

Real-world threats unfold in seconds, under stress and fear. Courts, however, evaluate those same actions with calm deliberation after the fact.

At TalonPoint Defence, our Krav Maga training is designed to prepare students for this reality:

Awareness and avoidance strategies to minimize risk.
De-escalation skills to reduce the need for physical force.
Simple, reliable responses that hold up under pressure.
A focus on proportionate force — just enough to stop the threat, and no more.

This alignment between training and legal standards increases the likelihood that defensive actions will be both effective in practice and reasonable in law.

Conclusion

Canada’s self-defence laws, reformed through Bill C-26, provide every Canadian with the right to defend themselves and others. But those rights are not unlimited. Courts consider the nature of the threat, the imminence of danger, the parties’ characteristics, the presence of weapons, and the availability of alternatives when deciding whether the force used was reasonable.

The principle is simple: proportionate force — enough to stop the danger, no more. Proper training ensures that Canadians can act confidently, effectively, and within the law.

Disclaimer

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The application of self-defence law is fact-specific. Anyone facing a legal issue should consult a qualified lawyer.