I can begin to answer and then my colleague will likely elaborate further.
In case I misstated something, the point I was making was that with respect to defending property alone, it's the position of the common law at present that you can't use deadly force just to defend your property. We have not changed that in these proposed amendments.
However, in many cases, defence of property soon turns into defence of person. As you've noted, in every case it's going to be a judge looking at exactly what transpired in the particular circumstances of the case. So if my home were invaded—a home invasion sort of by definition has that added dimension of bodily harm or threats being done to the occupants of that home. It's not just that my home is invaded without my being there, because that's a break and enter, a robbery, but there is an element of personal violence. Then it would quickly be defence of self as well as defence of property. The reasonableness is determined in the circumstances of that event—whether there's violence being used against me, violence being used against my children.
Joanne Klineberg is best positioned to indicate why we're not going down the road of identifying whether it's movable property or a dwelling house or others and why we're going with one simplified provision that will adapt to the circumstances.