In August 2025, Kawartha Lakes police charged a Lindsay, Ontario resident following a violent home invasion. According to media reports, an intruder armed with a weapon (reportedly a crossbow) forced entry into an apartment in the early morning hours. The intruder was confronted by the resident, which resulted in the intruder suffering life-threatening injuries. The initial police investigation led to the resident being charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon (reportedly a knife).
This case sparked national outrage and debate, with many people asking, “Why would someone face criminal charges for protecting themselves and their home?” The answer lies in how the Canadian Criminal Code views and addresses self-defence and defence of property. Unlike some states in the USA, t’s not as simple as, “My home is my castle.”
For both private citizens and security guards, understanding these laws is critical. It can mean the difference between lawful protection and serious criminal charges.
How Self-Defence Works in Canada
Self-defence is covered by Section 34 of the Criminal Code. This law says that you are not guilty of an offence if:
- You believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used (or threatened) against you or someone else, and…
- Your response is for the purpose of defending or protecting yourself or someone else from that force, and…
- Your response is reasonable in the circumstances.
The key term in this, and all use of force authorities is reasonable force. Ultimately this determination is made in court, considering factors such as:
- The force that was being used or threatened against you.
- Whether you had other, non-force options available. (escape, call police, etc.)
- The comparable size, skill, strength, etc. of the parties.
- Whether your response was proportional to the threat.
You are not expected to act with perfect judgement in a crisis. However, the law does not provide you with unlimited freedom of choice. For example, lethal force is only appropriate in response to an imminent threat to your life, or the life of someone else.
Defense of Property
Defence of property is covered by Section 35 of the Criminal Code. This section allows you to use reasonable force to protect your property, or property you’ve been authorized to protect. This includes preventing entry to, the taking or damaging of, and removal from the property. This includes buildings and land, but also personal items such as vehicles, laptops, or jewelry.
Like Section 34, there are limits to the amount of force that can be used in the protection of property. Once again, any force used must be reasonable. For example, it is highly unlikely that lethal force will be considered an acceptable response to protecting one’s belongings. Property is simply not more valuable than human life.
Section 26: Why Charges Sometimes Follow
Even when someone is acting under the authority of Sections 34 or 35, Section 26 of the Criminal Code says that:
“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.”
This means that if the police believe that the force used goes beyond what was reasonable in the circumstances, criminal charges can be laid. This is the legal backdrop for the Lindsay case.
What We Know About the Lindsay Incident
Official details remain limited. The police have confirmed that the intruder entered the apartment through a window, armed with a weapon. Other sources say it was a crossbow. When confronted by the resident, a struggle ensued, and the intruder suffered life-threatening injuries. Both the intruder and the resident were subsequently charged. The resident was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. The intruder was charged with break and enter, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and probation breaches.
What we do not know is what actually happened inside that apartment in the early hours of that morning. That missing information has led to rampant assumptions, largely based on people’s emotions and beliefs around self-defence and defence of property. The primary debate is about whether the charges against the resident are fair.
Hypothetical Scenarios
Since the facts are unclear, let’s consider three hypothetical scenarios that could explain why the police may have laid charges. These are examples only, NOT statements of fact.
Scenario 1: The Intruder is Neutralized but the Force Continues
The resident uses a knife to disarm the intruder. Having lost the crossbow, he now poses less of a threat, but the resident continues stabbing long after the threat has been neutralized. The police could view this situation as “excessive force” under Section 26.
Scenario 2: The Force Used Was Disproportionate
The intruder points the crossbow but then flees toward the exit when confronted by the resident. The resident then stabs the intruder in the back on his way out the door. Because the intruder was retreating, taking the threat with him, the force might be considered excessive and not reasonable in the circumstances.
Scenario 3: Misjudging the Level of Threat
The intruder breaks in with a weapon but does not attempt to use it. The resident immediately responds with potentially lethal force, even though the intruder is not posing an imminent risk to the resident’s life. If there were other, less dangerous options available to the resident, the police (and courts) may judge that the force was not proportional to the threat. The law focuses on the response to the actual threat, not only a fear of one.
Case Law: How Courts Decide
Although the Lindsay case has sparked the current debate, the courts have a long history of addressing self-defence and defence of property. For example:
Not Guilty: R v. Hodgson
A guest at a house party was asked to help remove a larger, more aggressive guest who was refusing to leave. During the altercation, the defendant applied a one-armed choke hold, which resulted in the guest’s death. He was charged with second-degree murder and manslaughter.
The trial judge acquitted him of second-degree murder, finding reasonable doubt that he intended to kill the guest. On the lesser charge of manslaughter, the judge accepted the claim of self-defence under Section 34 of the Criminal Code.
Maybe Guilty (Maybe Not?): R v. Khill
A Hamilton man was charged with second-degree murder for shooting and killing an intruder approaching his truck, which was parked in his driveway. The defendant noticed the dash lights of his truck were on, so he retrieved his shotgun, exited his house, and approached the truck. There he confronted the intruder, firing two shots, killing him.
At trial, the defendant claimed he acted in self-defence, believing that the intruder was armed and about to shoot him. The intruder was in fact, not armed. A jury accepted his defence and he was acquitted of the charge. However, upon appeal it was determined that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury to consider the defendant’s role in the incident, and whether other options were available, rather than confronting the intruder directly. As a result, a new trial was ordered. This order was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Myths vs. Facts
Myth: Canada has a “stand your ground” law like some US states.
Fact: No, Canada does not. There is no blanket authority to use lethal or even excessive force.
Myth: You cannot defend yourself at all in Canada.
Fact: You can use force to defend yourself and your property, but the law restricts you to force that is reasonable in the circumstances.
Myth: You are only allowed to respond with equal force.
Fact: You are allowed to use a higher level of force to protect yourself or your property, but it still must be proportional to the force being defended against. Section 26 will hold you accountable for excessive force.
Lessons for Security Professionals
Security guards find themselves in a different position that the average citizen. Guards often encounter conflicts in the workplace, retail and event settings. It is their role to protect people and property. This sometimes means responding to and engaging with potentially violent individuals. But unlike the average citizen, security guards are trained in the law and use of force principles, and expected to act with control.
For guards, the same criminal code offences and authorities apply as for every other private citizen. Guards who act unlawfully expose themselves to criminal charges, civil lawsuits, loss of licence and even employment.
This is why proper training, education and policies are so important in the security industry. The better security guards understand their authorities, and how the courts view use of force, the better their decision-making will be.
Why Charges Happen
Many Canadians instinctually feel that defending yourself or your home should never lead to criminal charges. But the law takes a more cautious approach. Police and prosecutors must ask:
- Was the force necessary?
- Was it proportionate?
- Was it reasonable?
When the answers raise concerns, charges are laid. It does not mean that the resident will be convicted. It means that the question of reasonableness must ultimately be decided by the courts.
Conclusion
The Lindsay case has stirred public anger and sparked a national debate about self-defence and defence of property in Canada. It also highlights an important truth: In Canada the right to defend yourself and your property comes with limits. The law protects defenders, but only if their actions are deemed reasonable. The challenge really comes down to determining what is reasonable. That unfortunately, is not black and white. There are many many variables, and every situation is unique.
For security guards, this reinforces the need to act with measured judgement. Strong communication skills, and a solid understanding of relevant Canadian law will help you use good judgement and take thoughtful action.
References
CBC News. (2025, August 20). Ont. man charged after confronting intruder inside home, court documents say. CBC News. Retrieved September 3, 2025, from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/lindsay-home-invasion-charges-1.7619465
Government of Canada. (2025, August 28). Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. Justice Laws Website. Retrieved September 3, 2025, from https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/
Government of Canada. (2025, August 28). Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, section 26. Justice Laws Website. Retrieved September 3, 2025, from https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-26.html
Government of Canada. (2025, August 28). Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, section 34. Justice Laws Website. Retrieved September 3, 2025, from https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-34.html
Government of Canada. (2025, August 21). Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, section 35. Justice Laws Website. Retrieved September 3, 2025, from https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-35.html
R v. Hodgson, 2024 SCC 25. (2024). Supreme Court of Canada. Retrieved September 3, 2025, from https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/20276/index.do
Supreme Court of Canada. (2021). Case in Brief – R v. Khill, 2021 SCC 37. Supreme Court of Canada. Retrieved September 3, 2025, from https://www.scc-csc.ca/judgments-jugements/cb/2021/39112/