[jolinar of malkshor]

I am not sure why people think that there is no self defence law in Canada. As stated before, S.34 allows for self defence against an attack.

S. 27 also states:

Every one is justified in using as much force as is reasonably necessary
(a) to prevent the commission of an offence

(i) for which, if it were committed, the person who committed it might be arrested without warrant, and

(ii) that would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or property of anyone; or


(b) to prevent anything being done that, on reasonable grounds, he believes would, if it were done, be an offence mentioned in paragraph (a).

Section 37 states

Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

So if we look at Section 34. Subsection 1

Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

The main element to consider here is the intent. Say someone attacks you with a knife and you use another weapon such as knife or a bat to repel the attacker and you kill the attacker. As long as the person did not intent to kill the attacker, self defence in subsection 1 would be made out. There was no intent to kill and reasonable force was used.

Alternatively, subsection 2

Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

This subsection allows for people to basically use deadly force. In this case if someone pulls a knife on you and the assailant is attacking you and you believe that you will sustain injuries that would result in grievous bodily harm or death, and the only way to prevent it is to kill the assailant, you would have a defence.

Section 27 is also very important in that one can use as much force as is reasonably necessary to prevent the commission of an offence.

I agree that the law should be less restrictive and allow more latitude with regards to personal defence and property defence especially with regards to break and enters and home invation. But I definately to not agree with statements like " A true self-defense clause would allow for a person to use any and all force required to cease an attack on their person or property."