• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

National Post - High court rules Candians may "stand and fight" in their home

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,710
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
National Post - High court rules Candians may "stand and fight" in their home

The Candian "stand and fight" doctrine aligns Candian law with English common law and the law of almost every US state - in the home, there is no duty to retreat.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/15/matt-gurney-on-an-ontario-courts-strong-endorsement-of-the-right-to-self-defence/

SNIP

A jury convicted Forde of manslaughter.

Forde appealed on a variety of grounds, and a trio of Ontario judges concluded that one of them was indeed a serious legal error. During his trial, the Crown had argued that given their agreed-upon physical locations during their fight, it was possible for Forde to turn and flee his apartment without having to pass McNabb. Because Forde was capable of retreating, the Crown argued that the use of deadly force was not an absolute last resort. The use of force against McNabb therefore did not meet the “reasonable” requirement necessary to claim self-defence.

The Ontario Court of Appeals rejected this offering by the Crown, and further stated that the trial judge erred in not instructing both the Crown and the jury that that was not a legitimate legal argument under Canadian law. Citing numerous precedents across Canada and the United States, the three judges ruled that there is **never a requirement for any individual to flee their home** when under attack. The decision to **stand and fight** in one’s own dwelling is entirely permitted under Canadian law and tradition, and the possibility of retreat may not be deemed relevant by a jury when determining whether the force used was reasonable or justified.

In reaching this conclusion, the judges cited (among many others) a prior case in British Columbia in which the judge had declared that, when under attack in your own home, you may stand your ground and fight because “one’s home is already one’s last line of defence against an assailant.”

. . .
 

opencarrypalmtrees

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
59
Location
pumpkinville
We support the right to castle doctrine for Canadians and their right to a CCW permit

I am happy to see Canada beginning to support the right to self defense in the home and outside the home. I would love to see them allow
concealed handgun permits for their citizens to defend themselves from bad guys
 

coltster

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2014
Messages
5
Location
Canada
Sadly, Not going to Happen

I don't see that happening in my lifetime.
Agreed, I live here and as much as I'd like to see ccw or open carry permitted, it will not happen, unless it very common for people to be mugged and killed on super regular basis, then will not be considered, and even then, it would be a fight.
Crime is here, but not super high, so not on radar for people to fight for it... I hope the above situation doesn't happen to bring us to that.
Though it is legal to shoot someone in self defense here, you can't possess a gun for that reason. It has to be for sporting and locked in cabinet/safe... and you have to prove how you got to it before you and family were murdered... and even then, courts and some police are asswipes about it.
 
Top