On Friday, Pierre Poilievre announced plans to amend Canada’s self-defense laws. He stated that the use of force, including lethal force, should be presumed reasonable against anyone who unlawfully enters a home and poses a threat to those inside. This proposed reform aims to favor victims, but experts suggest it may not significantly alter the current legal landscape.

Under existing Canadian law, individuals who reasonably believe they are facing a threat can take defensive action. This includes victims of break-ins. Poilievre’s amendment would primarily shift the default position of courts regarding self-defense cases. Currently, the legal presumption in criminal trials is that the accused is not guilty until proven otherwise. This principle can change based on the evidence presented.

In cases involving bail, courts often presume that certain accused individuals, such as repeat offenders or those charged with firearm-related crimes, should not be released. However, this presumption can also be challenged. Despite the introduction of reverse-onus bail for specific offenders, reports of repeat violent offenders committing further crimes while out on bail continue to emerge.

A notable case involved Bailey McCourt, who was killed in a parking lot in Kelowna, B.C., by her estranged husband, James Plover. Plover had been released on bail after a conviction for choking McCourt. Following his conviction, he was granted pre-sentence release, leading to his current charge of second-degree murder. McCourt’s family is now advocating for justice reforms, including a reverse-onus bail rule for domestic violence cases, which has been in place since 2019. However, judicial discretion allowed Plover’s release, resulting in tragedy.

Critics argue that even if self-defense laws are amended to favor victims, judges may still exercise discretion that could undermine these changes. Many judges in Canada are perceived to prioritize rehabilitation over deterrence, often dismissing incriminating evidence based on Charter rights. This approach can complicate cases where victims respond to threats with force.

To create a substantial change in self-defense law, some suggest explicitly granting property residents the right to respond with force during home invasions. This could involve adding specific provisions to the Criminal Code that outline permissible actions in such scenarios. For instance, lethal force could be explicitly allowed during home invasions, and victims could be exempt from the obligation to call 911 before taking defensive action.

Poilievre has characterized his proposed amendment as "reasonable and prudent," emphasizing that it applies only to unlawful entries and maintains proportionality. However, critics argue that preserving proportionality may not lead to the significant changes needed to protect victims effectively.