Stand on Guard Act

Summary#

• This bill, called the Stand on Guard Act, would change Canada’s Criminal Code rules on self‑defence inside the home.

• It adds new “starting assumptions” that favour people who use force, including deadly force, against someone who unlawfully enters their home.

• Key changes:

  • States clearly that a person may use force — including lethal force — that they reasonably think is needed to defend themselves or someone else from an unlawful intruder in a home where they have a right to be.
  • Tells courts to assume an unlawful intruder intended to use force against someone in the home, unless there is evidence showing otherwise.
  • Tells courts to start by assuming the person who used force against an unlawful intruder in a home met the legal test for self‑defence.
  • Applies only to “dwelling‑houses” (homes) and only when the defender is lawfully present. It does not cover police or others who have legal authority to enter.

What it means for you#

• Homeowners, renters, and guests

  • If someone unlawfully enters the home you are in, the court will start by assuming you acted in self‑defence if you used force, including lethal force.
  • The court will also assume the intruder intended to use force against someone inside, unless evidence shows otherwise.
  • You can use force to protect yourself or another person, not just property.
  • These changes apply only inside a home. Self‑defence rules outside the home stay the same.

• Families and neighbours

  • The law could make it less likely that a resident who injures or kills an unlawful intruder will be convicted, because of the new assumptions in their favour.
  • Mistaken entries by people who are not allowed in (for example, a confused person entering the wrong unit) could still trigger these assumptions unless evidence shows they did not mean harm.

• Police and prosecutors (government lawyers)

  • In home‑intrusion cases, you would face legal assumptions that favour the resident’s self‑defence claim, and would need evidence to overcome them.
  • Authorized entries (such as police with a valid warrant) are not treated as unlawful intrusions.

• Gun owners and other residents

  • The bill does not change who may own or carry weapons. It only affects how the law views force used against an unlawful intruder in a home.

Expenses#

Estimated government cost: No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

• Strengthens the right to defend yourself and your family at home without fear of being unfairly charged.
• Gives clear rules to judges and juries, reducing second‑guessing of people who faced a break‑in.
• Deters home invasions by making it clearer that residents can lawfully use force, including lethal force.
• Protects victims by shifting the legal starting point away from the intruder and toward the resident.
• Aligns the law with common public expectations about safety in one’s home.

Opponents' View#

• May encourage quicker use of deadly force, increasing the risk of preventable deaths or injuries.
• Creates assumptions about an intruder’s intent that may be wrong in some cases (for example, unarmed or confused entrants).
• Makes it harder to charge or convict people who use excessive force, even when the threat was low or had ended.
• Could reduce careful investigation and balanced review in close or disputed cases, because courts must start from assumptions favouring the defender.
• Adds complexity to self‑defence law and could conflict with the general presumption of innocence for accused persons.