Bill C-270 Stand On Guard Act
C-270 An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Defense of Person)
Short Title: Stand on Guard Act
Bill Type: Private Member’s Bill
Bill Sponsor: Sandra Cobena (Newmarket—Aurora)
What is this Bill trying to do?
Under current Canadian law, using force — including lethal force — to defend yourself in your home is legal, but you must prove the force was reasonable in the circumstances. Courts weigh multiple factors including the nature of the threat, whether you could have retreated and whether your response was proportionate. This Bill changes that by adding two presumptions: first, that anyone who breaks into your home is presumed to have entered with intent to use force against you; and second, that any force you use against that person — including lethal force — is presumed to be a valid legal defence. The burden shifts from you to the Crown to disprove it.
Status: 2nd Reading — placed in Order of Precedence March 19, 2026. This Bill hasn't passed yet.
How would YOU vote? Scroll down to vote and comment below.
WHO GAINS POWER
- Homeowners and lawful occupants gain a legal presumption that their use of force — including lethal force — against an unlawful entrant is justified
- The defense gains a structural advantage at trial — the Crown must now rebut the presumption rather than the accused establishing it
- ⚠️ "They deem reasonably necessary" is the standard — the person using force judges what is necessary in the moment and the Bill creates a presumption that judgment was correct
WHO LOSES POWER
- Crown prosecutors lose the presumption-neutral starting point — they must now actively disprove that the conditions for self-defense were met
- Courts lose some discretion in weighing the full circumstances of a defensive act inside a dwelling — the presumption narrows the analytical space
- ⚠️ "Without being entitled by Law to do so" — this phrase does significant work. Landlords, bailiffs, police with warrants, utility workers with access rights and estranged family members with legal claims to the property are excluded. Who qualifies as "entitled by law" will be litigated extensively
WHO GAINS MONEY
- Criminal defense lawyers gain — presumption-based defenses generate more complex trials and appeals as the Crown attempts to rebut
- Home security and firearms industries may gain if the Bill signals a cultural shift toward armed home defense
WHO LOSES MONEY
- ⚠️ No direct financial mechanism in this Bill — but wrongful death civil liability exposure for homeowners who use lethal force and are later found to have acted outside the presumption's scope is a real downstream risk
- The justice system absorbs increased litigation costs as courts define the boundaries of the new presumptions
THE CATCH
- ⚠️ "Lethal force they deem reasonably necessary" combined with a presumption of valid defense is a significant shift from current Law — Canadian self-defense Law already permits lethal force in genuine life-threatening situations. This Bill lowers the evidentiary bar by presuming the threat existed and the response was proportionate
- ⚠️ The intruder is presumed to have entered with intent to use force — this presumption applies even if the intruder was unarmed, confused, intoxicated, a teenager, a neighbour who entered the wrong house or a domestic partner with a disputed legal right to be there
- ⚠️ "Dwelling-house" is defined in the Criminal Code — it includes any building used as a permanent or temporary residence. The presumptions apply in a wide range of residential settings beyond a single-family home
- The presumption is rebuttable — "in the absence of evidence to the contrary" — but the burden of producing that evidence now falls on the Crown, not the defense
- ⚠️ No duty to retreat is addressed — Canadian law does not currently require retreat before using force in self-defence, but this Bill further entrenches that position by presuming any force used in a home entry situation is valid
- This Bill is modelled on "castle doctrine" Legislation in several U.S. states — the evidence on whether castle doctrine Laws reduce crime or increase homicides is contested in the research literature
- ⚠️The presumption applies regardless of the intruder's actual intent— in practice, unlawful home entry includes estranged spouses, intoxicated neighbours who have the wrong house, teenagers breaking in for theft, people in mental health crisis and bystanders who broke a window believing someone inside needed help. The Bill treats all of them the same as an armed home invader.