The question of whether Canadians should have a clearer legal right to defend themselves in their own homes is no longer theoretical. It is becoming a mainstream public debate—one shaped by rising concern over violent break-ins, uneven policing response times, and a growing disconnect between lived experience and courtroom interpretation.That debate came into sharp focus at the 2026 National Conservative Convention in Calgary, where delegates voted overwhelmingly in favor of adopting so-called stand your ground laws. While headlines framed the issue as an endorsement of vigilante justice, the substance of the proposal was more restrained: to clarify when and how existing self-defense laws apply, and who bears the burden of judgment in moments of imminent danger.According to reporting by CBC, current Canadian law allows homeowners to “protect themselves with lethal force against an intruder in their home.” In reality, the proposed changes were to clarify existing laws that rely on the concepts of “reasonable, proportional and necessary”. At this time, judgment is made by the court, where a careful assessment of the situation is made. Castle Laws allow the judgement to be made by the person under attack and in imminent danger.&nbsp;Canadians’ interest in such a law was sparked when a man in Lindsay, Ontario was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon after he used a knife to fight off someone who broke into his home last summer. Following the incident, Ontario Premier, Doug Ford, stated “you should have the right to protect your family and your home without worrying you’ll end up in handcuffs.” Ford also said “we need to put law-abiding homeowners ahead of criminals.” Beyond that specific incident, Canada has seen, after 10years of soft on crime policies, that there is a greater need for Canadian’s to be able to defend themselves when the police and courts can’t – or won’t. At the Conservative Convention, CBC reports that conservative delegates voted “overwhelmingly”, over 90% in favour, to enact a stand your ground law. While the delegate vote seems extreme, it is a reflection of the greater community sentiment. Canadian’s want to feel safe in their own homes.&nbsp;The original adaptation of the stand your ground laws was implemented in the United States. Stand your ground laws, also known as the castle doctrine, allow homeowners to use any force necessary, including lethal force, against intruders on their own property. The name “castle doctrine” comes from the saying that one’s home is their castle. According to Browne Criminal Defence, some states even extend this law to apply in public places, as there is no duty to retreat. In some states, castle doctrine can allow homeowners to use lethal force on an intruder without any extra duties.&nbsp;In Canada, homeowners can rely on our existing self-defence laws in the Criminal Code. Section 34 is the self-defence provision, which holds that people may use force that is reasonable in the circumstances if they reasonably believe force may be used against them. Section 35 is the defence of property provision, which states that someone may use reasonable force to prevent someone from entering or damaging their property or to remove someone who is trespassing. What level of force is considered reasonable will depend on the circumstances. But most important, it will depend on someone else applying their judgement as to what is reasonable - after the fact – in the safety of a comfortable court room. They are not making split second life-or-death decisions in the middle of the night while they are face-to-face with an aggressive violent criminal.Lawyers interpreting the law have used the example of a criminal with a baseball bat. They say that in that case you can’t use lethal force such as a firearm. It should be equal; proportional. Nonsense. If a group of men in their early 20’s break into your house at 3:00 am, armed with baseball bats they can easily kill you. Fearing for your life, if you use lethal force to save your life and that of your family, you will live. But you will live to spend the next several years in court defending yourself. Time, money and stress that is unnecessary. Castle Laws make sense.&nbsp;There are many criticisms over castle doctrine, however, Canada’s self-defence laws are truly not good enough. They transfer the burden of proof from the criminals to the victims. There are many other steps that need to be taken to make sure your home is safe, such as surveillance systems, cameras, sturdy locks and doors. People should be able to use force if they reasonably believe your life is in danger.As Premier Danielle Smith of Alberta stated; “If you don’t want to get shot, don’t break into someone’s house!” She is a supporter of Castle Laws, but most important, she is a supporter of decent law-abiding Canadian’s and their right to feel safe in their own home. It seems like pretty simple and sound advice.For homeowners, this debate is ultimately about risk, personal, financial, and legal. A clearer self-defense framework could reduce uncertainty and post-incident exposure while reinforcing the principle that private property is not a soft target. As crime patterns evolve and public confidence in enforcement fluctuates, the demand for legal clarity is likely to grow.Whether or not Canada formally adopts Castle Doctrine laws, the conversation itself signals a shift. Canadians are increasingly asking not just how safe their homes are, but what the law expects of them when safety fails. That question is no longer fringe, and it won’t be going away.

Should Canada Make Castle Doctrine the Law?

As crime rises, Canadians debate Castle Doctrine laws. Should homeowners decide self-defense of their property and rights in the moment, or leave it to courts later?

About RIFO

Business

Investors

News

Contact Us

Contact Us