Justice committee  I'm simply trying to illustrate that there is a bit of a paradox that I think is inherent in the language, no matter how it is drafted. If you take murder as the best example, you can claim self-defence to a murder charge and be acquitted, but it's quite clear that you have committed murder.

Justice committee  Our view is it's absolutely correct. You have to look at all the elements as a whole. Essentially, the way self-defence works now is there's the question of the perception of the threat. The perception must be subjectively held and that perception must be reasonable. With respect to the question of whether the force used can justify the act, the question is both whether that person thought what he was doing was the right thing to do and whether was it the right thing to do from a reasonable perspective.

Justice committee  It wouldn’t do that either.

Justice committee  I think it would lead to more questions than answers. That is already something that the courts understand well, when it is relevant. In many cases, it’s not at all relevant anyway. In the case of such a factor, we must really consider the wording used. There truly is a risk in this case.

Justice committee  Generally speaking, that is how the courts deal with it. It is a matter of taking the perception of the accused into account, but insofar as that perception is reasonable. I don’t think your suggestion would change how the legislation is interpreted or applied.

Justice committee  That is related to the issue I talked about earlier, that of determining the reasonableness of someone's actions. The reason why the person has difficulty evaluating the degree of force may make their actions unreasonable. It may be a matter of racism or something similar. The wording you suggested is pretty general.

Justice committee  I think the idea is to extend the time period in cases where an immediate arrest is not possible. Under such conditions, I don’t see how that could be disadvantageous. It is not up to you to decide when the arrest should be made. That must be done when possible, as soon as possible.

Justice committee  Perhaps a bit. Be that as it may, we hope that the courts will take it to mean “as soon as possible”, as in other areas where something must be done within a reasonable time. It is highly likely that the courts will interpret it that way even if nothing is added.

Justice committee  No.

Justice committee  That was one of our concerns when we were preparing this bill. We are very much aware that it is really necessary to protect everything we have gained through case law regarding those types of situations. In the list of factors, paragraph 34(2)(f) that we want to add mentions “the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force”.

Justice committee  I think the intention is to extend the time period in cases where the arrest cannot be made when the crime is committed.

Justice committee  Are you referring to citizens or to security agencies?

Justice committee  I don't think there's anything in the legislation that seeks to encourage anyone to resist law enforcement activities. However, it is already part of the law of self-defence that if a person has a reasonable belief that they're being assaulted—and this includes if a police officer is using excessive force or attacking them, as opposed to using force within the necessary parameters to arrest them—then the present law of self-defence allows a claim of self-defence against that conduct.

Justice committee  We cannot know how the charter will be applied in a specific case. That’s up to the courts. Generally, companies that provide security services come under provincial jurisdiction and are subject to codes of conduct. It is their responsibility to comply with the provincial legislation they come under.

Justice committee  Yes.