Stand on Guard Act

This bill, called the Stand on Guard Act, changes the "defence of person" rules in the Criminal Code, specifically the section (section 34) that deals with when someone can legally use force, including deadly force, to defend themselves or others.

Under the changes, the law would clarify that a person can use force, including lethal force, that they consider reasonably necessary against someone who has unlawfully entered a home in which they are legally present. The bill also creates two legal presumptions that would apply in these situations. First, if someone knowingly and unlawfully enters a dwelling, the law would presume, unless proven otherwise, that they intended to use force against the people lawfully inside. Second, if a resident uses force, including lethal force, against an unlawful entrant, the law would presume that the legal conditions for a valid self-defence claim have been met.

In practical terms, this shifts the legal burden in home-intrusion cases: rather than the resident having to prove their use of force was justified, the law would start from the assumption that it was justified and that the intruder meant harm, unless evidence emerges to contradict that. This would apply to criminal cases where someone is charged after using force against an unlawful entrant into their home.

This bill amends section 34 of the Criminal Code to add new presumptions about the defence of person when someone uses force, including lethal force, against a person who has unlawfully entered a dwelling-house.

• Defence available — a person lawfully present in a dwelling-house may use force, including lethal force, that they "deem reasonably necessary" against someone who has entered without legal entitlement to do so.
• Presumption of intent — if an unlawful entrant knowingly entered the dwelling-house, this is treated as proof they intended to use force against those lawfully present, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
• Presumption of valid defence — the legal conditions for the defence of person under subsection (1) are presumed to be met whenever a lawfully present person uses force, including lethal force, against someone who unlawfully entered the dwelling-house.
• Standard for reasonableness — the bill does not define an objective standard for what force is "reasonably necessary"; it ties the assessment to what the defending person "deems" necessary.
• Burden of proof — both presumptions shift the burden onto the Crown or another party to produce "evidence to the contrary" to rebut them, rather than requiring the defending person to establish the elements of the defence.
• Oversight — the amendments contain no review clause, reporting requirement, or sunset provision; they operate as a permanent change to the Criminal Code once in force.