Self-Defence, Obedience to Law & Correction of Children
- Lesson 15 of 24
- Core
- Justifications: Force & Authority (ss. 34-35). Self-defence reform of 2012, defence of property, peace officer execution of law, and s. 43.
- 11 min
- Reviewed
By James R. GosnellEducational material, not legal advice.
Key points
Self-defence requires a reasonable belief in force or a threat, a defensive purpose and a reasonable response assessed in the context of the whole incident. Property protection, lawful enforcement and correction of children each have distinct statutory conditions that limit the permitted use of force.
The lesson's scenario
A Single Push to Escape and a Chair Blow Against a Raised Bottle
Go to the worked example- Builds on
- Module III analyzed mental state exemptions, involuntary conduct, and chemical intoxication.
- This lesson
- Section 34 self-defence: reasonable belief in force/threat, subjective defensive purpose, and objective reasonableness of the response in light of the whole incident (Khill); section 35 defence of property.
- Leads to
- Lesson 16 moves from physical self-protection to choices forced by emergency peril or criminal threats: necessity and duress.
A three-pass reading method
- Start with the worked example. Seeing the facts first anchors the abstract rules.
- Read the doctrine: the statutory elements, the fault standard and the leading cases. Note the tests judges apply.
- Finish with the practice checklist and the recall cards at the end of the lesson.
Overview
Several Criminal Code provisions can justify conduct involving force, but each has its own conditions. Section 34 concerns protection of people; section 35 concerns property; section 25 concerns acts required or authorized by law; and section 43 provides a narrowly interpreted defence for correction. JurisClasseur Québec, Droit pénal général, treats these regimes separately.
must be distinguished from the murder defence of provocation and from excuses such as duress. A legal justification also does not depend simply on the accused's view that the conduct was morally acceptable.
Learning Objectives
- Apply section 34 to the accused's belief, purpose and response.
- Distinguish protection of property from protection of people and lawful enforcement.
- Identify the limits on corrective force and the prosecution's burden once a defence has an air of reality.
Self-defence under section 34
Three cumulative conditions govern the defence:
| Condition | Question |
|---|---|
| : 34(1)(a) | Did the accused believe on reasonable grounds that force was being used or threatened against them or another person? |
| : 34(1)(b) | Was the act committed for the purpose of defending or protecting against that force or threat? |
| : 34(1)(c) | Was the act reasonable in the circumstances? |
The first question has subjective and objective components. A reasonable mistake about the threat can qualify; an actual attack is not indispensable. The defensive purpose is subjective and need not be the accused's only motive, but retaliation alone does not satisfy it. The reasonable-response inquiry applies community standards in the relevant circumstances (nos 4–10).
An accused must point to evidence giving each required component an air of reality. Once that threshold is crossed, the Crown must disprove at least one component beyond a reasonable doubt. A doubt about one component does not require acquittal if the Crown has disproved another. The defence can be supported by evidence from either side; the accused is not invariably required to testify.
Reasonableness and the whole incident
Section 34(2) requires consideration of relevant circumstances, including the force or threat; imminence and alternatives; the accused's role in the incident; weapons; physical characteristics; the parties' relationship and history; earlier interaction; proportionality; and knowledge that the force responded to was lawful.
Khill, 2021 SCC 37, explains that the accused's role is a broad, neutral factor. The court must consider the relevant course of conduct, including choices contributing to the confrontation, rather than isolating its final instant. Starting or escalating a conflict is relevant, without creating an automatic statutory disqualification (nos 9–20).
Imminence and escape options are relevant factors rather than separate universal prerequisites. There is no general duty to retreat, but an available safe alternative can affect reasonableness. Being at home does not remove the reasonable-force requirement. Stress and the need for quick judgment matter; the law does not require exact measurement of force during an attack (nos 16–19).
Relevant physical characteristics, experiences and some psychological conditions can inform the contextual assessment. Personal prejudice, irrational racial fears or the standards of a criminal subculture cannot redefine the reasonable person. Expert evidence concerning abuse may help explain perceptions and options, but does not automatically establish the defence (nos 6 and 11–15).
Under section 34(3), responding to force used for lawful enforcement engages a specific limitation, subject to the accused's reasonable belief that the other person was acting unlawfully. Knowledge of lawful force also matters under paragraph 34(2)(h). A dispute with police is not resolved merely by calling the response self-defence (no 20).
Worked example: force during an escape
Factual Scenario
In this hypothetical, a person is cornered, threatened and struck. They push the attacker away once, then leave. The attacker falls and suffers a serious wrist injury. The accused says the push created an opportunity to escape; a witness confirms the attacker was still advancing.
The continuing attack supports reasonable belief in force. The single push followed by departure supports a defensive purpose and a reasonable response. The injury is relevant evidence about the force, but its seriousness cannot alone establish disproportionality in hindsight. These facts give all three conditions an air of reality. The Crown must then disprove at least one beyond a reasonable doubt; it may challenge the claimed force or purpose using the whole record. If the described evidence is accepted and no such disproof occurs, self-defence requires acquittal.
Returning after the danger has passed to strike in revenge is a distinct act. Its purpose and reasonableness must be assessed separately; a justified initial push does not protect the later retaliation.
Variation
Suppose instead the accused began the argument and shoved the other person. That person then raises a heavy bottle and advances. The accused responds with a forceful blow using a nearby chair. An unlocked exit is behind the accused, but witnesses disagree whether it was safely reachable before the bottle could strike.
The accused's initial aggression weighs in the whole-incident assessment without automatically excluding the defence. The raised bottle supports a reasonable apprehension of serious force and the claimed protective purpose. The chair blow and possible exit give the Crown a substantial reasonableness argument; the rapidly escalating threat and disputed safety of escape support the defence. There is no freestanding duty to retreat, and reasonableness cannot be decided simply by counting weapons or injuries. Once every condition has an air of reality, the decisive question is whether the Crown disproves one beyond a reasonable doubt on the resolved facts.
If the same danger instead prompts an unlawful escape that harms a third party, compare the necessity and duress routing exercise. The identity of the person against whom the act is directed and whether the threat demanded that offence change the legal route.
Defence of property under section 35
The provision concerns reasonable belief in , a qualifying intrusion, taking or interference, the statutory protective purpose, and a reasonable act. A person assisting someone believed on reasonable grounds to be in peaceable possession can also fall within it. Legal title and peaceable possession are different questions (nos 21–27).
The belief can be reasonably mistaken. A dispute about property does not mechanically defeat every claim; its seriousness and context matter. Subsection 35(2) limits the defence where the accused lacks a claim of right and the other person is legally entitled to possession. Subsection 35(3) separately addresses lawful enforcement and reasonable belief that the official conduct was unlawful.
Force must be reasonable for the authorized property purpose. Deadly force cannot be justified solely to protect property. Where an intrusion also threatens a person's safety, section 34 requires a separate analysis. Withdrawal of an invitation may require a reasonable opportunity to leave; offensive speech does not automatically authorize immediate physical expulsion (nos 25 and 28–31).
Obedience to law and authorized force
Section 15 concerns the exceptional situation of obedience to laws imposed by a de facto sovereign authority. It is not a general defence of following a superior's orders or obeying any law claimed to conflict with Canadian law. Express exclusions apply to offences including torture and those addressed by the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (nos 33–34).
Section 25(1) requires lawful authority or duty, reasonable grounds and necessary force. Its protection is not confined to police: a private person acting within a lawful power, such as a qualifying citizen's arrest, may invoke it. Section 25 does not itself create an unlimited arrest or search power (nos 35–39).
Section 25(2) provides specific protection for good-faith execution of defective process or a sentence. Section 26 preserves responsibility for . For force intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm, identify the applicable additional rule (nos 40–43):
| Provision | Operative conditions |
|---|---|
| 25(3): general restriction, subject to (4) and (5) | The person must believe on reasonable grounds that the force is necessary to preserve themselves or someone under their protection from death or grievous bodily harm. |
| 25(4): fleeing person being arrested | A peace officer or lawful assistant must be making a lawful arrest, with or without a warrant; the offence must permit arrest without a warrant; the person must flee to avoid arrest; the officer or assistant must reasonably believe the force necessary to protect themselves, the assistant or another person from imminent or future death or grievous bodily harm; and flight must be unpreventable by reasonable, less violent means. All five conditions are cumulative. |
| 25(5): escape from a penitentiary | For force against an escaping inmate, a peace officer must reasonably believe that any inmate of that penitentiary poses a threat of death or grievous bodily harm to the officer or another person, and escape must be unpreventable by reasonable, less violent means. This is the specified penitentiary regime, not a rule for every person leaving custody. |
Flight alone therefore supplies neither the protective belief nor the absence of reasonable, less violent means. A lawful arrest for an eligible offence is only the beginning of the subsection 25(4) analysis. Compare these requirements with section 34's reasonable-response factors: the statute here expressly makes the less-violent-means condition a prerequisite. Current Criminal Code, s. 25
Correction of children under section 43
JurisClasseur explains the narrow interpretation in Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 4. The provision applies to a parent, a person standing in the place of a parent, or a schoolteacher, in relation to a child or pupil under their care. Standing in a parent's place may involve assuming the full parental responsibilities for a period or a delegation of parental authority, including a temporary or implicit delegation supported by the facts. Merely entrusting a child to someone does not necessarily establish that delegation. The provision also requires a and . Frustration, loss of control or conduct intended to terrorize the child does not satisfy that purpose (nos 44–48).
The child must be capable of benefiting from correction. Corporal punishment of children under two or teenagers falls outside the recognized protection. A teacher cannot use corporal punishment, although reasonable force to restrain, remove or secure compliance with instructions may be considered under the applicable limits (nos 49–52).
The permitted force is minor, transitory and trifling. Harm or a reasonable prospect of harm, degrading treatment, blows to the head and corporal punishment with objects fall outside the protection. Actual visible injury is not required to defeat the defence. The gravity of the child's misbehaviour does not license a corresponding level of violence (nos 52–56).
For a hypothetical comparison, a teacher briefly holds a disruptive pupil's arm to guide them away after ignored instructions, using no more force than reasonably necessary. That is a restraint and compliance question under the stated limits. Striking the pupil afterward to punish disobedience is corporal punishment and falls outside the teacher's protection, even without a visible injury. Establishing the relationship therefore does not establish the purpose or permitted force. Current Criminal Code, s. 43
Practice Checklist
- Identify the applicable defence for each distinct act.
- For section 34, separate reasonable belief, actual defensive purpose and reasonable response.
- Consider the whole incident, available alternatives and relevant personal circumstances.
- Check claim of right, lawful enforcement and the specific limits on property protection.
- Establish the underlying legal power before relying on section 25.
- Apply all relationship, purpose, age and force restrictions under section 43.
Check your understanding
Two short exercises before you move on: reason through the lesson’s worked examples, then recall its key terms from memory.
Apply the rules
Each worked example gives the facts first and keeps its analysis closed. Decide the outcome, then open the analysis to compare.
Active recall
1 / 8Formulate your answer before revealing the definition. Your self-assessment schedules a review; it does not measure mastery.
self-defence
légitime défense
How would you define this concept? Which conditions or limits matter?
Glossary
- Corrective purposeBut correctif
- The purpose required for correction of a child, which frustration, loss of control or an intention to terrorize does not satisfy.
- defensive purposebut défensif
- The accused’s actual purpose of protecting themselves or another person from the perceived force or threat.
- excessive forceforce excessive
- Force beyond what the applicable legal authority permits; section 26 preserves criminal responsibility for excess according to the nature and quality of the act.
- peaceable possessionpossession paisible
- Possession whose asserted right is not seriously contested in a manner liable to produce a breach of the peace; section 35 addresses reasonable belief in such possession.
- Reasonable beliefCroyance raisonnable
- A belief in force or a threat supported by reasonable grounds; an actual attack is not indispensable.
- Reasonable forceForce raisonnable
- Force remaining within the limits of the applicable protective, enforcement or corrective authority.
- Reasonable responseRéaction raisonnable
- An act assessed against community standards in the relevant circumstances, taking account of the whole incident.
- self-defencelégitime défense
- The defence under section 34, requiring reasonable grounds for the perceived force or threat, a defensive purpose and a reasonable act.
References and Further Reading
- Primary source: JurisClasseur Québec, Droit pénal général, , “Légitime défense, obéissance à la loi et correction des enfants”, nos 1–56; merged PDF pp. 598–637.
- Legislation discussed in the source: Criminal Code, ss. 15, 25–26, 34–35 and 43; Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, s. 13.
- Cases discussed in the source: Khill, 2021 SCC 37; Lavallee, [1990] 1 SCR 852; Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6; Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law, 2004 SCC 4.