The “Stand on Guard Doctrine”: Could Canada Adopt a Castle Doctrine for Real Estate?
At Rabideau Law, we spend much of our time helping clients secure and protect their real estate. For many Canadians, their home is their most important asset—financially and emotionally. But when it comes to defending that property from intruders, Canadian law takes a very different approach than the United States.
In the U.S., most states have adopted the castle doctrine, which presumes that a homeowner is justified in using force, even deadly force, against an unlawful intruder. Canada does not have such a law. But what if Canada introduced its own version, a “Stand on Guard Doctrine”? What would need to change, and how might it affect real estate ownership?
How Canadian Law Currently Treats Defence of Property
Under the Criminal Code of Canada (s.35), a person may use reasonable force to prevent someone from entering or trespassing on their property. However:
- Deadly force cannot be used solely to protect property. It is only permitted when there is a direct threat to life or safety.
- Courts look closely at proportionality. For example, striking a trespasser may be lawful; shooting a trespasser who poses no threat to life would almost certainly not be.
- There is no formal “duty to retreat,” but whether a homeowner could have safely left is a factor courts consider.
From a real estate law perspective, this means that property rights are not absolute. Ownership gives you the right to exclude others, but not to use unlimited force to do so.
For more information on what a homeowner must do before using force in Canada check out this blog.
What a “Stand on Guard Doctrine” Would Look Like
If Canada adopted a Stand on Guard Doctrine, the legal landscape for real estate owners would change significantly. Such a doctrine would:
- Presume force is lawful when used against unlawful intruders in a home or dwelling.
- Remove proportionality concerns within the home, treating unlawful entry itself as a sufficient trigger for defensive force.
- Provide civil immunity, preventing intruders (or their estates) from suing property owners for damages.
This would give homeowners stronger legal tools to defend not just their families, but their real estate investment itself.
The Laws That Would Need to Change
For Canada to adopt a Stand on Guard Doctrine, Parliament would need to amend the Criminal Code:
- Expand s.35 (Defence of Property).
Create a statutory presumption that force—including deadly force—is justified against intruders inside a dwelling. - Adjust s.34 (Self-Defence).
Clarify that proportionality does not apply in the same way when a homeowner is defending their residence. - Add civil immunity protections.
Enact rules preventing trespassers or their families from suing property owners in civil court for injuries sustained during an unlawful entry. - Clarify scope.
Decide whether the doctrine would apply only to private dwellings, or also to cottages, farmland, rental properties, or even commercial real estate.
Real Estate Implications
For homeowners and investors, a Stand on Guard Doctrine would:
- Strengthen property rights, affirming the principle that one’s home is legally protected as a “castle.”
- Impact landlord–tenant law, raising questions about whether landlords could invoke it in rental units.
- Shift liability concerns, especially for owners of vacation homes, farmland, or rural properties where police response may be slower.
In other words, it wouldn’t just be a criminal law change—it would ripple across Canada’s real estate system
Conclusion
Canada does not currently have a castle doctrine. Any Canadian equivalent, the Stand on Guard Doctrine, would require rewriting our self-defence and property-defence laws. For now, Canadians can defend their homes, but only within the framework of reasonable, proportional force.
As real estate lawyers, we often remind clients that owning property in Canada means balancing strong property rights with equally strong legal limits. Until Parliament changes the law, Canadians should remember that while their home may feel like a castle, the law does not yet treat it that way.
