There are two separate provisions, and one is for the defence of persons where broader authority is granted. But I've encountered police officers who didn't know that you actually have a right to defend your property. In fact, the Criminal Code sets out a three-part test for when you have the right to defend property.
If you believe on reasonable grounds another person either has entered your property or is about to enter your property, and that act of entering your property constitutes an offence, you are permitted to use reasonable force in the circumstances.
I've had police officers tell me in cross-examination when I'm asking them as to why a charge was laid say they weren't defending a person, they were defending their property. But what they don't get to is the last part of the provision that says as long as the act is reasonable in the circumstances, then defence of property is permitted.
In my view, police need to be better educated that it's not just the defence of persons. Equally there's a defence of property provision that has its own rules but has binding effect.