Self-defence is a facet of the law that is widely referenced, but how well do we actually understand it? What are your rights when defending yourself or someone else?

The law on self-defence was fairly settled—in that it had not changed – in this country for a long time prior to 2013, when reforms were introduced. Prior to 2013, the Canadian Criminal Code included four sections, which split the concept into four separate categories, each aimed at dealing with different factual scenarios. This caused a great deal of confusion and the law became, understandably, convoluted. After suffering much criticism for their inaccessibility, impracticality, and over-technical nature, these sections of the Code were eventually repealed and replaced with a bill popularly called the Citizen’s Arrest and Self-defence Act.

The actcame into effect on March 11, 2013. The goal of this change was to create clarity and transform the former provisions, which were extremely specific in nature, to something more widely applicable and generally accessible. It merged all of the former Criminal Code sections on self-defence into a single section—section 34. This created a more streamlined understanding of what self-defence really means and what a person needs to prove into order to successfully mount the defence.

As a Canadian, if you want to claim that you acted in self-defence, you will need to satisfy a legal test, which is broken into three easy-to-understand components. These components are as follows:

(1) that you reasonably believed that force or a threat of force was being used against you;

(2) that the actions you employed in response to that force or threat of force were employed for the purpose of defending yourself or another person;

(3) and that your actions were reasonable in the circumstances.

As you may have already noticed, the Canadian legal system is very focused on reasonableness. A great deal of judicial time and effort has been spent dissecting this concept and applying it to various scenarios and circumstances. As a general rule of thumb, something will be considered reasonable if an outside, objective third party, having regard to all of the relevant information and observations, would also come to the same conclusion.

When it comes to self-defence, reasonableness means that a person must show that they not only subjectively believed that they were under attack but that an objective third party would also believe the same if they were standing in their shoes. So you and your theoretical neighbor must be in agreement.

This does not, however, mean that the perceived force must have been real—only that it has an air of reality. The law allows for honest but mistaken beliefs in the context of self-defence.

The next hurdle focuses on actions taken in response to the threat. Simply put, a person’s actions must be taken in defence. This means that you must be either actively under attack or under the threat of attack when you act in self-defence. The threat must be persisting.

This requirement separates our law on self-defence from laws in other countries, which may provide justification for shooting an assailant in the back as they flee the scene after the attack has already taken place, for example. In Canada, you would be hard-pressed to make this successfully make this argument within the parameters of self-defence.

Finally, you must show that your actions were—here’s that word again—reasonable. In this context, reasonableness boils down to necessity. You must ask yourself, “did I do more than what was necessary in order to defend myself?” If you did, then you acted outside the confines of self-defence and your actions will not be justified.

That being said, there is no exact measure when it comes to necessary responsive force. More than anything, this part of the legal test is aimed at ensuring that a person who responds to a slap in the face by shooting their attacker in the chest cannot successfully claim that their actions were taken in self-defence. It is a necessary constraint on the availability of this defence.

And while these legislative changes are not perfect, they have appeared to significantly improve the practicality and accessibility of the law around self-defence in this country. With an increased understanding of what self-defence means, people are in a better position to gauge the significance of their actions and the consequences that may flow from them.

But always remember—the best defence is a good offence.