In February of 2026, a female caused a disturbance inside the McDonald’s at a Prince Albert, Saskatchewan Walmart. When security attempted to get the woman to leave, she struck one of the guards in the face. The security guard responded by slapping the woman back. The video of the incident can be viewed here.
This short video shows only a snippet of the overall interaction, leaving many questions unanswered. Therefore, in this post, we will focus the discussion on just what is seen and how the security guard’s reaction to being struck fits within Canada’s laws around the use of force.
What the Video Appears to Show
The interaction appears to be located in the seating area of the McDonald’s inside of the Walmart. It is unclear what led to the security intervention, but there are three security guards present. There also appears to be as many as three subjects. There is a female who appears to be the focus of the incident, as well as two males in her company.
The female subject appears to be highly agitated and acting aggressively towards the security guards. One of her male companions appears to be physically holding her back while she gestures towards the guards. Suddenly, the woman steps forward and strikes out at the guard in front of her, hitting him in the face. She then steps back. The guard immediately steps forward and delivers an open-hand strike to the woman’s head. Faces are blurred in the video, so it is difficult to know exactly where the strike landed. An unknown male then steps in and touches the guard, who physically escorts the male towards the counter of the restaurant. While there is some verbal back and forth, this concludes the physical interaction in the video.
Once again, this video exists without any context of what happened before or after. But we can take a look at whether, at face value, the guard acted within his legal authorities and industry expectations.
Use of Force in Canada
Everyone, including security guards, has the authority to use force against others in Canada. However, these authorities come with specific conditions and limitations.
The Criminal Code of Canada authorizes the use of force for the purposes of law enforcement (Section 25), self-defense (Section 34), and the defense of property (Section 35). In all cases, the application of force must be necessary, proportional, and reasonable. The use of excessive force can result in criminal charges, as detailed in Section 26 of the Criminal Code.
The interaction shown in the video strongly suggests that the guard struck the female in direct response to her striking him. In that context, the question becomes whether the guard’s actions are consistent with self-defense. Was it done to protect himself, or was it in retaliation for being struck?
The National Use of Force Framework
The National Use of Force Framework and its supporting document from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police outline a framework for assessing a situation considering its many unique factors, and then selecting the most appropriate response option. Available response options include Officer Presence, Communication, Soft and Hard Physical techniques, Intermediate Weapons, and Lethal Force. While not the only factor to consider, appropriate response options tend to align with the seriousness of the subject’s behavior. Subject behaviors are identified as Cooperative, Passive, and Active Resistance, Assaultive, and Grievous Bodily Harm or Death.
From what is visible in the video, the female appears to have exhibited assaultive behaviour when she struck the guard. The counter strike from the guard would be considered a hard physical control technique. Based on just those factors, there appears to be an alignment between subject behaviour, and the guard’s response, according to the framework. While it may be tempting to keep this analysis as simple as that, there are many more factors to consider before we can conclude whether the guard acted appropriately.
Defensive vs. Punitive Force
What may be the biggest factor is the intent of the guard when he made the decision to strike the female. Self-defense laws in Canada only authorize the use of force to protect oneself from imminent harm. Any action taken must only be to prevent someone else from harming you or another person.
No law or authority permits the use of force for punitive purposes. You can’t retaliate against someone simply because they did something to you. This is especially true if they are no longer doing it.
In this situation, the female did strike the guard first. However, it was one strike, then she stepped back. There did not appear to be an immediate intent to continue the assault against the guard.
The guard’s response was to step forward and deliver one strike to the female, then step back. There does not appear to be an intent to take control of the female to prevent her from continuing the assault or protect others from her continued assault. If the guard’s intent at the time was simply to retaliate, it is likely not considered self-defense. The urge to retaliate is driven by emotion and can be very powerful. This is one of the many challenges that security guards face in their role. They are expected to remain calm and in control, even in the face of strong physical and emotional reactions. Nevertheless, that is the expectation.
Defensive responses often look like:
- Blocking incoming strikes.
- Creating distance or disengaging.
- Using objects, such as tables, as barriers between themselves and the attacker.
- Calling for assistance.
- Taking physical control of the attacker to prevent them from continuing the assault.
Punitive responses look more like:
- Spontaneous and short-lived actions such as striking out, with no clear plan for what happens next.
- Verbal expressions of anger or frustration.
- Moving aggressively towards the attacker when the option to disengage exists.
- Actions that are intended to cause harm, but do not increase safety or control over the situation.
In the video, it is unclear how the guard’s strike to the head of the female would have improved safety, except perhaps to make her too afraid to assault him again.
Human Instinct and Threat Response
Like all living creatures, humans are wired for survival above all else. When faced with a threatening situation, we instinctually resort to our fight, flight, or freeze responses. These are designed to happen quickly, impulsively, and without much in the way of planning or assessment. It takes time to assess and evaluate, and that time can get us killed.
No doubt the guard’s survival instincts were activated by the risk and intensity of the situation and the female’s aggression. The physical sensation of being struck would have heightened his urge to act in self-defense even more. From the viewpoint of human instinct, we can all understand the urge to strike back. Unfortunately, instinct is not the legal standard for self-defense. Reasonableness is.
The Importance of Training for Security Guards
Security guards are expected to be able to self-regulate their emotions and restrain themselves from taking action out of fear and instinct. This is no small task. It takes significant training and experience to learn how to keep your head clear and not act impulsively under stress. Sadly, the frequency and quality of training provided to security guards in Canada vary widely.
The importance of high-quality training cannot be overstated. At a minimum, many provinces require a basic training course, typically 40 hours, often available online, to become licensed. Beyond that, it is largely up to security organizations and the guards themselves as to what additional training is provided. This lack of oversight and regulations has led to a significant gap in competency and capability between guards.
For organizations and individual security professionals looking for quality training, SecurityGuardCourse.ca offers a wide array of programs focusing on the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in the security industry.
Was the Guard’s Use of Force Justifiable?
From a neutral perspective, based only on what we can verify through the short video clip, there are two realistic possibilities.
One possibility is that the guard perceived that there was an ongoing threat from the female and acted to prevent her from actively continuing her assault. If that is supported by facts not visible in the video, force may be considered appropriate under Canadian law.
The other possibility is that the guard exceeded what was necessary to stop the threat. Striking out at someone can certainly be justifiable, but typically only when other options are not available. Force, while allowed, is still considered the option of last resort. Further still, it must be reasonable in the circumstances.
Conclusion
Without the full understanding of the event, including the circumstances leading up to the assault, and the knowledge of the situation that the guards had, we cannot reach a definitive conclusion. However, anytime a security guard uses force against someone in view of the public, there will be questions and scrutiny about its appropriateness.
Ultimately, it is the police who will first decide if the use of force was appropriate. If they choose to lay charges, the guard will then need to justify his actions under Section 34 of the Criminal Code in court. Both the police and courts will consider factors such as:
- Whether the guard attempted to disengage.
- How serious the perceived threat was.
- The actual action taken by the guard in relation to the actions of the female.
- Whether less forceful options were available.
- The guard’s intentions when he chose his response to being struck.
Even if no criminal charges are laid, there is still the risk of a civil lawsuit being brought against the guard, his employer, and even Walmart and McDonald’s. Civil courts are concerned with whether someone’s action caused another person harm… physical, emotional, financial, etc. They operate on a balance of probabilities, which means it only needs to be more likely than not that the defendant was liable. Civil courts will look at things like:
- The level and quality of training provided.
- Company policies on physical intervention and self-defense.
- Supervision and oversight.
- Whether the guards’ actions were consistent with training, policy, industry standards, etc.
Security guards face many challenging situations while performing their role. The expectations placed on them in terms of professionalism often run contrary to human nature. It is the nature of the role, and not everyone is well suited for it. Even the most well-trained guard, with years of experience, can succumb to the impulses that fear and stress bring on. We are all human. But with great training, leadership, and support, all security guards can rise to the challenges.
References
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. (2000). National use of force framework. https://www.cacp.ca/_Library/resources/National_Use_of_Force_Framework.pdf
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. (2000). National use of force framework model. https://www.cacp.ca/_Library/resources/202401090929561745296096_nationaluseofforceframeworkmodel.pdf
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. (February 12, 2026). Security guard, customer seen fighting in Walmart altercation [Video]. CBC Player. https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.7085312
Department of Justice Canada. (2026). Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46). Justice Laws Website. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/