First of all, I invite you to read the definition of “torture”. It can be found in section 269.1. The exact same definition can be found in the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Just to summarize, it refers to severe pain or suffering intentionally inflicted on a person for the purposes of intimidation, with a view to obtaining a statement or something else from him.
Another characteristic of torture is that it is carried out by a public official or someone acting on behalf of the State. If you read the clause of the Canadian Human Rights Declaration that deals with torture, you will see that nowhere is there any mention of assault or bodily harm. I also am of the view that bodily harm is not necessary if the aim is to inflict severe pain or suffering on an individual. That is partly the difference between the Canadian and American definition of “torture”. I believe that in the American definitions, it does refer to bodily harm and consequences. That is the focus there.
What you say is interesting. In the absence of any real study of what torture is or a decision to use the international definition, as opposed to the American definition, things rapidly become confused. That can easily be the case for a police officer or public official, who is not even a police officer, entrusted with this task. I believe the distinction may not be clear.
An individual could thus commit torture while believing himself to be protected. And, in actual fact, it is not only possible, but even probable, that he would be. That would be a strong argument to make before a judge.