Recent assault charges against a Toronto restaurant owner have sparked discussions about self-defense laws in Canada. The owner was accused of assaulting a man he believed was stealing from his establishment. This case, along with several high-profile self-defense incidents in the U.S., has raised questions about property rights and the legal boundaries of self-defense in Canada.

Criminal lawyer Howard Cohen noted that there is a significant misunderstanding among Canadians regarding their self-defense rights. Many believe they have no rights in such situations. According to the Criminal Code, a property owner can only make a citizen's arrest if they catch someone in the act of committing a crime. However, Cohen emphasized that juries often consider the context and reasonableness of a person's actions when determining the legality of self-defense.

Last year, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper introduced legislation aimed at clarifying self-defense rights, known as the 'Lucky Moose' bill. This bill was inspired by a case involving David Chen, the owner of Lucky Moose grocery store in Toronto, who, along with his employees, apprehended a thief. Although Chen and his employees faced serious charges, they were ultimately found not guilty. The bill, now referred to as Bill C-26, is currently under consideration in the House of Commons.

Cohen and fellow criminal lawyer Stacy Nichols discussed the nuances of self-defense laws in Canada. Nichols explained that individuals have the most rights when defending their homes. Under Section 40 of the Criminal Code, anyone in possession of a dwelling can use necessary force to prevent someone from unlawfully entering their home. Cohen added that while the rule of reasonable force applies, judges typically give individuals the benefit of the doubt in home defense cases.

"You can use any force you deem necessary to remove the burglar from the house and eliminate the threat to yourself," Cohen stated. He clarified that if a person uses significant force against an intruder, such as knocking them unconscious, they are unlikely to face assault charges. However, if the intruder is retreating and the homeowner uses excessive force, such as hitting them with a bat, legal consequences may arise.

Nichols pointed out that the phrase "as much force as is necessary" is crucial in these cases. Judges consider the circumstances surrounding the incident, including the degree of force used and the location of the confrontation. Cohen noted that there is extensive case law regarding self-defense, and individuals who use lethal force against an intruder are often treated leniently.

The discussion also touched on the concept of a citizen's arrest. Cohen explained that if someone witnesses a crime, they can make a citizen's arrest using reasonable force. However, he cautioned that the force used must be justifiable and proportionate to the situation.

In a separate incident in Lindsay, Ontario, a 44-year-old man was charged with aggravated assault after allegedly injuring an intruder in his home. The incident has drawn public attention and criticism, including comments from Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who suggested that the charges indicate a flaw in the legal system. Criminal lawyer Tonya Kent emphasized that while self-defense is legal in Canada, it must be reasonable and not excessive.

Kent explained that the right to self-defense does not mean individuals can use any force they wish. For example, if someone is pushed, they cannot respond by using a baseball bat against the assailant. The force must be proportionate to the threat faced.

Kawartha Lakes Police Chief Kirk Robertson defended the charges against the homeowner, stating that while individuals have the right to defend themselves, the law requires that any defensive action be proportionate to the threat. He acknowledged the public's emotional response but urged for a more accurate understanding of the law.

The alleged intruder, a 41-year-old man, has been charged with multiple offenses, including possession of a weapon and break and enter. The case remains under investigation, and the charges against the homeowner have yet to be tested in court.