Stand on Guard Act

Summary#

Bill C-270, the Stand on Guard Act, proposes to amend the Criminal Code’s defence-of-person provisions. Its stated goal is to add presumptions to that defence; the supplied material does not show that the changes are in force.

• If someone uses force against a person who knowingly entered a dwelling-house without legal entitlement, the bill would presume—unless there is evidence to the contrary—that the entrant intended to use force against someone lawfully there.
• It would also presume that the existing conditions for the defence of person are met when force, including lethal force, is used against such an entrant.
• The bill says the force may include lethal force that the person deems reasonably necessary to defend or protect themselves or another person lawfully in the dwelling-house.
• These provisions concern a person lawfully present in a dwelling-house and an entrant who is not entitled by law to enter. The supplied text does not define those terms.

What it means for you#

• People lawfully present in a dwelling-house: If you use force against someone who entered without legal entitlement, the proposed presumptions could affect how the defence of person applies to your actions.
• People accused of using force in those circumstances: The bill does not create an express immunity from prosecution. It would add presumptions to the existing defence, but the supplied text does not explain how those presumptions would work in a case.
• People entering a dwelling-house: The bill would not itself make entry a separate offence or set a penalty for it. It addresses entry as part of the proposed defence-of-person rules.
• Current law: The Criminal Code text being amended was not supplied, so the existing defence and how the bill would change it cannot be fully verified here.

Money#

No publicly available information.

• The supplied text sets no appropriation, fee, fine, or staffing requirement, and gives no estimate of any costs.

What is unclear#

• The bill does not give a start date. The supplied material also does not say whether the bill has passed; its proposed changes should not be treated as in force.
• The bill does not explain how the presumption that the defence conditions are met may be challenged. Unlike the intent presumption, it does not expressly say “in the absence of evidence to the contrary.”
• The supplied text does not define “dwelling-house” or “without being entitled by law to do so.” The parent Act was not provided, so it is unclear whether it defines these terms.
• The bill does not set out procedures for applying the presumptions or explain how they interact with the rest of section 34.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to make the defence of person more explicit when someone uses force against an unlawful entrant in a dwelling-house.
• A possible argument for the bill is that presuming intent to use force recognizes the danger that may be associated with such an entry.
• The presumption about the defence conditions could give clearer legal protection to people who use force to defend themselves or another person in that situation.

Case against#

• One concern is that the defence conditions would be presumed met whenever force, including lethal force, is used against an unlawful entrant, while the bill does not explain how that presumption may be challenged.
• The intent presumption could apply even where the only stated fact is that the entrant knowingly entered without legal entitlement; the bill does not require proof of a separate threat before that presumption applies.
• It is unclear how courts would interpret key terms or apply these presumptions alongside the rest of the existing defence-of-person rules.