The debate over self-defense and castle laws in Canada has intensified in recent months. Some argue for the need to enact new castle law legislation, while others contend that such laws do not align with Canadian values. However, experts assert that a castle law already exists in Canada as an ancient right under Common Law, dating back to at least 1604. This principle was established in England by Sir Edward Coke, a prominent judge and attorney general. He famously stated, "The house of every one is to him as his Castle and Fortress as well for defence against injury and violence." Coke further noted that if thieves attempt to rob or harm a homeowner, the homeowner or their servants may defend themselves, and it is not considered a felony.

This legal doctrine has been integrated into Canadian law through the common law system and remains in effect. Despite claims from some police officers, Crown prosecutors, and media commentators, individuals in Canada do have the right to defend their lives, the lives of others, and their property. While there are limitations to this right, the law is clear, even if public understanding may be lacking.

Solomon Friedman, a criminal defense lawyer and law professor at the University of Ottawa, emphasized the legality of self-defense in Canada. He stated, "Self-defense is absolutely legal in Canada. It is a full defense to a charge up to and including murder." Friedman explained that once a person establishes a self-defense claim, the burden shifts to the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that self-defense was not legally justified.

Friedman pointed out that the issue lies not in the law itself but in its application. He criticized the tendency to adopt a "charge first and question later" approach in self-defense cases. He suggested that provincial leaders, such as Ontario's Doug Ford and Alberta's Danielle Smith, could reduce the number of charges in self-defense cases by revising the guidelines for prosecutors. "Policy is the problem. Parliament does not have to pass any laws," Friedman said. "What has to happen are the provinces who are responsible for the charging decisions of police. They need to amend the policy handbooks of the police services and of their Crown attorney’s offices."

Brantford MP Larry Brock echoed this sentiment, noting that while Crown prosecutors operate independently, they are still influenced by directives from the provincial government. Brock, a former prosecutor, stated, "They are still directed policy-wise by the attorney general."

The solution to the current challenges surrounding self-defense is not merely to create new laws but to apply existing laws more effectively. Friedman argued that if provincial attorneys general issued directives to be more selective in self-defense cases, fewer innocent individuals would face charges. He described the legal process as a punishment in itself, stating, "The process is the punishment, both in terms of time, in terms of conditions, but also in terms of the stigma of being charged with a really serious criminal offense."

To successfully invoke self-defense, Friedman explained that individuals must have a reasonable belief that force is necessary, that their actions are defensive, and that those actions are reasonable given the circumstances. He noted that the subjective nature of what is considered reasonable can complicate these cases. Ultimately, the right to self-defense is well-established in Canadian law, and contrary to assertions from some officials, exercising this right does not equate to turning Canada into "the Wild West."