When can you defend your property? Sask. lawyer weighs in

A Manitoba property owner is facing firearm charges after confronting suspected thieves, renewing questions about how far Canadians can legally go to protect themselves and their property.

The case has a Saskatchewan connection: RCMP said the suspects arrived in two vehicles that were later confirmed to have been stolen from Watrous, Sask.

Read more:

• Manitoba has hired 4,700 health-care workers since 2023: government
• Manitoba opens province’s first supervised consumption site
• Mounties arrest man and boy in Pelican Narrows shooting investigation

Pembina Valley RCMP were called to a rural property in the Rural Municipality of Dufferin at about 10:45 p.m. on Aug. 15 for a reported theft in progress.

According to police, four people had visited the property earlier that day before returning in the evening. A motion-activated camera alerted the 66-year-old property owner, who went to investigate and allegedly saw fuel being transferred from a portable container into one of the vehicles.

RCMP said the property owner confronted the group while carrying a firearm and fired shots toward the vehicles. No injuries were reported.

Saskatoon criminal defence lawyer Brian Pfefferle said the incident highlights a common misconception about Canadian self-defence law.

“Canada does not have what is commonly called the castle doctrine; no stand-your-ground law,” Pfefferle said. “Every response by every person, this one included, comes down to this idea of what is reasonable, and that is the issue.”

Sections 34 and 35 of the Criminal Code deal with defence of a person and defence of property. Both turn on whether the accused believed, on reasonable grounds, that force, a threat or unlawful interference was occurring, and whether the response was reasonable in the circumstances.

Pfefferle said a person does not have a blanket right to shoot someone simply because that person has entered their property without permission.

“The force has to match the actual threat,” he said. “You can’t kill someone for a property-related offence in most circumstances. However, if a person is going to commit an imminent offence and you believe reasonably that they’re going to use serious violence, that’s a different story.”

He said a property owner may confront an intruder and, depending on the circumstances, could make a citizen’s arrest or use reasonable force to defend themselves or another person.

The critical question in the Manitoba case, Pfefferle said, could be whether the alleged threat remained immediate when the shots were fired.

“If the people are then retreating, leaving the property, did it justify shots being fired?” he said. “That’s, I think, the issue here.”

Pfefferle said warning shots are not generally a legally safe response. However, he cautioned against reaching conclusions before all the evidence is known.

The property owner’s state of mind, whether he believed anyone had a weapon and whether he thought someone faced an immediate threat could all become relevant, he said.

“There may be explanations. That’s why it’s very nuanced,” Pfefferle said. “Every case is different.”

He said courts assessing self-defence can consider the nature and immediacy of a threat, whether other options were available and the physical capabilities of the people involved.

“It doesn’t have to be a perfect response,” Pfefferle said. “It just has to be within the range of reasonable.”

Police said three suspects remained at the property until officers arrived. Items believed to have been stolen from the property were found in the back of a truck, according to RCMP.

A fourth person allegedly left in the other vehicle. Police said it was found the following morning in a canola field a few kilometres away.

A 29-year-old from the RM of Hanover is charged with possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, theft under $5,000, possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000, possessing break-in instruments, mischief under $5,000, trespassing and failing to comply with a release order condition.

A 47-year-old man and a 41-year-old woman, both from the RM of Emerson-Franklin, are each charged with theft under $5,000, possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000, possessing break-in instruments, mischief under $5,000 and trespassing.

The 29-year-old and 47-year-old were remanded in custody, while the woman was released on an undertaking, RCMP said.

The property owner was arrested at the scene and released on an undertaking. He faces two counts each of careless use of a firearm, using a firearm in the commission of an offence and recklessly discharging a firearm.

Pfefferle said rural isolation and the time it can take police to reach a property may also form part of the broader circumstances considered in determining whether someone’s actions were reasonable.

“The fear that people have at being isolated, being alone — you’re there to protect yourself and the response time is a factor that needs to be considered here in terms of the reasonableness,” he said.

He encouraged property owners to use cameras, document suspicious activity and contact police rather than approach someone whenever possible.

“There’s no blanket law that you can shoot a trespasser,” Pfefferle said. “Calling police, not approaching when possible, documenting stuff, let police arrest and if none of that’s possible, the force has to match the actual threat.”

None of the allegations have been proven in court.