Self-Defence Lawyer in Markham
Home › Markham Criminal Defence › Self-Defence Claims
You called 911 yourself. You were protecting your family, your home or your own body, and you are still the one who left in the police car. Take a breath. In Canadian law, being charged is the beginning of the self-defence analysis, not the end of it. Section 34 of the Criminal Code exists precisely for people in your position, and once your defence has an air of reality, the Crown must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. This page explains how Ontario courts actually judge defensive force, from Markham living rooms and driveways to family stores, and what to do right now.
Results matter. See our recent case successes and read our client reviews on Google, then call 647-588-3234 for a free, confidential assessment of yours.
Charged after defending yourself or your home? Do not give a statement before we talk.
Call 647-588-3234Free confidential consultation. Offices in Thornhill (serving Markham and York Region), Toronto, North York and Oakville.
- Why you were charged anyway
- The three gates of section 34
- The factor list, read through a Markham front door
- The castle doctrine myth
- Defending property under section 35
- Citizen's arrest and its traps
- What a weapon does to the case
- Defensive force inside a relationship
- Khill and your role in the incident
- After the incident: police, statements, bail
- If the defence is rejected
- Five mistakes that sink claims
- Frequently asked questions
You defended yourself. Why are you the one in handcuffs?
Start with the question that stings. If it was self-defence, why the charge? Because charging decisions get made fast, at the scene, on partial information. Officers arrive after it is over. They see who is hurt worse, who is calmer, whose friends speak first, and in a domestic call they will usually lay a charge as a matter of course. None of that decides reasonableness. The full analysis, with all the evidence and the law's factor list, happens later, in the hands of the Crown and, if it comes to it, a judge.
That gap between the scene decision and the legal analysis is where defence work matters most. The Crown screens every York Region file for a reasonable prospect of conviction, and a prosecutor reading only the police synopsis sees a one-sided story. Our first job in a Markham self-defence file is fixing that: your injuries photographed and documented, your account organized, witnesses identified, and the section 34 framework applied on paper, early, before positions harden at the Newmarket courthouse.
And the burden helps you. Self-defence is not something you must prove. Once there is an air of reality to it, the Crown must disprove at least one element beyond a reasonable doubt. That changes how these cases get fought. The defence does not have to win an argument about what happened; it has to leave the Crown unable to exclude the reasonable possibility that you acted lawfully.
The three gates of section 34
Section 34(1) is compact. You are not guilty of an offence if three things line up:
- you believed, on reasonable grounds, that force or a threat of force was being used against you or against another person;
- what you did was done for the purpose of defending or protecting yourself or that other person; and
- your act was reasonable in the circumstances.
Notice what is built into the first gate: defending someone else, your child, your spouse, a stranger in a parking lot, sits in the same section with the same test. Notice too what is not there. No fixed amount of permitted force. No rule that you must be hit first. No requirement of perfect judgment. The law asks about your reasonable perception at the time, not the tidy version reconstructed afterwards.
The first two gates are usually the quieter part of the fight. Almost every real self-defence battle in a York Region courtroom happens at the third gate, reasonableness, and Parliament gave that gate its own map.
Defending someone else
Stepping in for another person, your child, your partner, an employee, a stranger being swarmed in a parking lot, is analyzed under the same three gates. The question is your reasonable perception: did you reasonably believe force or a threat of force was being used against them, did you act to protect them, and was what you did reasonable in the circumstances? You do not need to be related to the person, and you do not need to be right in hindsight, only reasonable in the moment. Where intervenors get into trouble is the same place everyone does: continuing after the threat has ended, or joining a fight rather than stopping one. The factor list sorts those cases too.
The section 34(2) factor list, read through a Markham front door
Section 34(2) tells the court to consider the whole picture and lists nine factors. Here is that list, with the kind of home and family illustrations we actually argue:
| Factor | What it can mean at your front door |
|---|---|
| (a) The nature of the force or threat | A stranger forcing your side door at 2 a.m. is not a teenager cutting across your lawn. The threat you faced frames everything else. |
| (b) How imminent it was, and whether other means were available | Could you lock a door, wait for police, step back inside? A hallway confrontation with your kids asleep upstairs reads differently than an argument across a fence. |
| (c) Your role in the incident | What you did before, during and after counts, including who escalated things and whether you tried to cool them. |
| (d) Whether anyone used or threatened a weapon | A weapon on either side changes the calculus, and improvised objects count. This factor helps you when you faced one and hurts you when you produced one. |
| (e) Size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the people involved | A smaller or older person facing a stronger aggressor is judged in that reality, not in the abstract. |
| (f) The nature, duration and history of any relationship, including prior force or threats | History is expressly part of the analysis. Previous violence between you and the other person belongs in the courtroom. |
| (f.1) Any prior communications between you | Texts, warnings and threats exchanged before the incident come in. Preserve every message. |
| (g) The nature and proportionality of your response | Proportionality is weighed as part of the whole, not measured with a ruler, and it is compared against the threat as you reasonably perceived it. |
| (h) Whether you were responding to force you knew was lawful | Resisting conduct you knew was lawful is not self-defence, and s. 34(3) reinforces that limit where police act lawfully. |
No single factor decides a case. That is the deep point of the section. Reasonableness is a judgment about the entire event, which is why evidence gathering, not slogans, wins these files.
There is no castle doctrine on your Markham street
Canadians absorb a lot of American law from television, and it produces two opposite myths. The first: a home is a castle, so anything goes against an intruder. The second: Canadian law expects you to flee your own house rather than defend it. Both are wrong.
The proportionality myths deserve a sentence each. Reasonable does not mean a matching game; proportionality is one listed factor among nine, not a rule that a fist may only ever answer a fist. And reasonable does not mean unlimited; section 34 protects acts done for a defensive purpose, so force that keeps going after the threat has ended stops looking defensive and starts looking like the offence.
When a break-in at a Markham home becomes a confrontation, the law hands the homeowner neither a free pass nor a duty to be a victim. It hands them the framework above, and it hands their lawyer the job of showing the whole event through their eyes. Our Markham home invasion page covers the offence side of these same nights.
Defending property: what section 35 actually allows
Property defence has its own section, and its own traps. Section 35 protects you where four things line up: you believed on reasonable grounds you were in peaceable possession of the property, or were assisting someone who was; you believed on reasonable grounds that another person was about to enter or had entered without legal entitlement, or was about to take, was taking or had just taken the property, or was about to damage, destroy or disable it; your act was done to prevent entry or remove the person, or to prevent the taking or to retake the property; and, always, the act was reasonable in the circumstances.
Concretely, three Markham scenarios:
- The intruder at the door. Reasonable acts to prevent entry or to remove someone are protected. The moment the intrusion threatens people rather than property, section 34 takes centre stage with its fuller factor list.
- The driveway theft. The law permits reasonable steps to stop property being taken and to retake it immediately after. But driveway confrontations escalate in seconds, and force that was fine for protecting a vehicle becomes criminal the moment it outruns what the situation reasonably required. Nothing on this page tells you how much force you may use in advance; courts judge it after the fact, and that is the honest truth about how this law works.
- Vandalism in progress. Stopping someone damaging or destroying your property is a protected purpose, with the same reasonableness ceiling.
Two limits catch people. Under s. 35(2) there is no defence where you lack a claim of right and the other person is legally entitled to possession: repossessions, shared property and landlord standoffs are civil disputes wearing a criminal costume, not section 35 territory. And under s. 35(3), the section gives no protection against lawful law-enforcement action unless you reasonably believed it was unlawful.
Holding someone for police: the citizen's arrest trap
Store owners in Markham's plazas, family-business staff and homeowners all ask the same thing: can I hold them until police arrive? Section 494 of the Criminal Code says an owner, or a person authorized by the owner, may arrest someone found committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property. Since 2012 the section has also allowed arrest within a reasonable time afterwards, where it was not feasible for police to make the arrest themselves. Two duties ride along: deliver the person to police forthwith, and use only reasonable force.
It is real authority with real limits, and it is legally riskier than people assume. What happened during the holding, the tackle, the grip, the locked office, is often exactly what the charge against you is about. Where a detention goes wrong, the person doing the arresting can end up facing assault allegations while the alleged thief walks. If you are charged after holding someone, say nothing at the scene beyond asking for a lawyer.
What a weapon does to a self-defence case
Whether any party used or threatened to use a weapon is an express statutory factor, and in practice it is often the loudest one in the room. It cuts both ways with perfect symmetry. If the other person had a knife, a bat or a bottle, the threat you faced grows, and with it the range of responses a court may find reasonable. If you produced one, the proportionality conversation changes just as sharply, and the Crown will frame the moment you reached for it as the moment defence became attack.
Improvised objects count on both sides of that ledger. A bottle, a tool from the garage, a kitchen knife grabbed mid-struggle: the law does not care whether the object was designed as a weapon, it cares what was done with it and why. That makes evidence of the other side's weapon a central defence task. It appears in 911 audio, in injury patterns, in where objects ended up at the scene, and in what witnesses half-remember. We chase all of it, early, before memories settle into the Crown's version.
Two honest warnings belong here. First, separate weapons-related charges can ride alongside an assault count and have to be defended on their own terms. Second, nothing on this page is advice about arming yourself or using any object against another person. The law judges defensive force after the fact, on the whole picture, and this page explains that judgment; it does not hand out permission in advance.
Defensive force inside a relationship
Some of the hardest self-defence files in York Region happen inside homes, between partners. Parliament wrote that reality into the statute: the factor list expressly includes the nature, duration and history of the relationship, any prior use or threat of force, and the parties' prior communications. And decades ago, in Lavallee, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the reasonableness of a defensive act by an abused partner has to be judged with that history in view, with expert evidence where appropriate, rather than through a stranger's snapshot of the final moment.
We say plainly that this section serves two kinds of readers, and only two. It serves genuine victims, who defended themselves against a violent partner and then found themselves charged after a confused scene. And it serves their families trying to understand what happens next. It is never a script for abuse; the same history factors that protect a victim expose a pattern when the story runs the other way. These files are sensitive and fact-driven, and they intertwine with the dynamics on our Markham domestic assault page, including charges that arrive in pairs after a single 911 call.
If this is your situation tonight: get medical care, photograph injuries, and speak to counsel before giving any statement. The history that explains your actions has to be gathered deliberately. It rarely walks into a courtroom on its own.
Khill: your whole role in the incident is on trial
The Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Khill settled how broadly courts read the person's role in the incident. The answer is broadly. Courts examine your conduct throughout the event, what led in, what you did in the moment, and how you behaved afterwards, in deciding whether the act was reasonable. The framing that comes out of the case looks at the catalyst, the motive and the response: what created the danger, whether your purpose was defensive, and what you actually did about it.
Two practical consequences follow. Starting or escalating a confrontation does not automatically kill self-defence; a person who behaved badly early can still reach a moment where defensive force became reasonable. And being blameless at the start does not automatically win it; a lawful beginning can end in an unreasonable response. The trial is about the whole arc, which means your defence has to account for every minute, including the ones you are least proud of. We prepare clients for exactly that, because the Crown certainly will.
How the same law plays out in bar and transit cases downtown is covered on our Toronto self-defence page.
After the incident: YRP, statements and bail at Newmarket
What you do in the first hour shapes the file for a year. If you can, be the one who calls 911. Get medical attention, and do not clean up or move anything before police arrive; a scene that shows the struggle honestly is defence evidence. When officers from YRP's #5 District arrive, identify yourself, say that you were defending yourself and that you want to speak to a lawyer before giving a statement, then stop talking. The urge to explain everything at the roadside is the single biggest source of trouble in these files. Photograph your injuries when you can.
If you are held, you must generally be brought before a justice within 24 hours, and York Region bail runs through the Newmarket courthouse at 50 Eagle St. W., with weekend courts for people arrested off-hours. Expect conditions even as a homeowner: no contact with the other person, and sometimes a no-go term that keeps you from your own address for a time. We fight for workable conditions from the first appearance, then press the Crown's screening position early with the factor-by-factor case for why this was lawful defence.
Screening is also where charges get right-sized. A file that begins as a serious assault allegation can be re-evaluated once the Crown sees both sets of injuries, the layout of the scene and the history between the people involved. Sometimes that means withdrawal. Sometimes it means a lesser charge that honestly reflects a messy night. Either way, the screening conversation happens early, once, and with or without your input. We make sure it is with.
When the court rejects self-defence: what is left
Not every claim succeeds, and honest counsel plans for that from day one. Rejection of the defence does not collapse a case into the worst outcome. There are usually live questions about intent and causation. There are lesser included offences with very different consequences. There are resolutions the Crown will accept short of trial, especially where the other person's conduct started everything. And at sentencing, a genuine defensive context, an overreaction to a real threat rather than gratuitous violence, changes the story the judge is sentencing. We build every self-defence file on all of those levels at once, so that no single ruling decides your future.
The five mistakes that sink honest self-defence claims
After years of these files in York Region, the same five errors keep appearing, and every one of them is avoidable:
- Explaining at the scene. Adrenaline makes people narrate. Roadside accounts come out jumbled, get written down imperfectly, and follow the file forever. Identify yourself, say you were defending yourself, ask for a lawyer, stop.
- Tidying up. Moving the knife, sweeping the glass, washing your hands before photographs. An honest scene is defence evidence; a tidied one looks curated.
- Posting. The group chat version, the social media version and the courtroom version will differ, and the differences become cross-examination.
- Reaching out. Contacting the other person to apologize or explain feels human and reads terribly, and if conditions are in place it is a fresh offence.
- Waiting. The Crown forms its screening position early. A defence that arrives after positions harden fights uphill for months. The best time to retain counsel is before your first appearance at Newmarket, and the second-best time is today.
None of these mistakes means a case is lost. They just make winning slower and more expensive than it needed to be, and the whole point of this page is that you do not have to make them.
Why people who defended themselves call Kazandji Law
Self-defence files are won by lawyers who treat the whole event as evidence, move before the Crown's position hardens, and never let a clip or a synopsis stand in for the truth. Founding partner Fadi Matthew Kazandji has built the firm's Markham criminal defence practice on exactly that approach.
- Thornhill office at 7191 Yonge St., Suite 310, minutes from Markham, plus offices in Toronto, North York and Oakville.
- Deep experience across the situations this page touches, from false and disputed allegations to files where mental health is part of the story, and the full Ontario assault charge ladder when the Crown pushes back.
- Free confidential consultations, and results you can read on our successes page.
You already survived the incident. Now survive the process, with counsel who knows this ground.
Call 647-588-3234 nowKazandji Law. Criminal defence for Markham, Thornhill and all of York Region.
Frequently asked questions
Is self-defence legal in Canada?
Yes. Section 34 of the Criminal Code says you are not guilty of an offence if you reasonably believed force or a threat of force was being used against you or someone else, you acted to defend yourself or that person, and your act was reasonable in the circumstances. Once the defence has an air of reality, the Crown must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Why was I charged if I was only defending myself?
Police lay charges based on the information they have at the scene, which is often one-sided, and the reasonableness of your response is exactly what a court, not a roadside decision, is designed to sort out. A charge means the analysis is beginning, not that it has failed. Our first job is putting your version, your injuries and your evidence in front of the Crown early.
How does a court decide whether my force was reasonable?
Section 34(2) lists the factors: the nature of the threat, how imminent it was and what other options existed, everyone's role in the incident, whether anyone had a weapon, the parties' size, age, gender and physical capabilities, the history and any prior communications between you, the proportionality of your response, and more. No single factor decides it; the court weighs the whole picture as it appeared to you at the time.
Does Canada have a castle doctrine like the United States?
No. There is no separate castle law or stand-your-ground statute here. Defending your home runs through the same sections as everything else: section 34 for people and section 35 for property, and both always ask whether your act was reasonable in the circumstances. Being in your own home matters to that analysis, but it is never a licence for unlimited force.
Can I use force to stop someone breaking into my Markham home?
Section 35 permits reasonable acts to prevent someone from unlawfully entering property in your peaceable possession, to remove them, or to stop them taking or damaging it, and section 34 protects you where you reasonably fear for anyone's safety. What is reasonable depends on the threat you faced. Where a break-in turns into a threat to your family, the person-defence analysis under section 34 takes centre stage.
Someone was stealing my car from the driveway. Could I stop them?
The law allows reasonable steps to prevent property being taken and to retake it immediately after, and a property owner can arrest someone found committing an offence in relation to it, with a duty to hand them to police right away. But confrontations over property escalate fast, and force that is fine for protecting property can become criminal the moment it goes further than the situation reasonably required. If you are charged after such a confrontation, get advice before any statement.
Can I hold a shoplifter or an intruder until police arrive?
Section 494 allows a citizen's arrest by an owner or someone authorized when a person is found committing an offence involving the property, and since 2012 within a reasonable time afterwards where police involvement was not feasible, with the person delivered to police forthwith and only reasonable force used. It is real authority with real limits, and what happened during the holding is often what the charge against you is about.
I defended myself against my own partner. Does the law see that differently?
The law explicitly requires courts to consider the nature, duration and history of the relationship, including prior force and threats and the parties' prior communications. The Supreme Court recognized decades ago in Lavallee that the reasonableness of a defensive act by an abused partner has to be judged with that history and, where appropriate, expert evidence in view. These files are sensitive and fact-driven, and we handle them that way.
Does it matter that I threw the first punch or stayed instead of leaving?
Your role in the incident is one of the listed factors, and the Supreme Court in Khill confirmed courts look at your conduct throughout the event, from what led in, to the moment of force, to what you did after. Starting or escalating a confrontation does not automatically kill self-defence, and being blameless does not automatically win it. The whole sequence gets weighed.
What should I do right after defending myself, before police arrive?
Call 911 yourself if you can, get medical attention, and do not clean up or move anything. When police arrive, identify yourself, say you were defending yourself and that you want to speak to a lawyer before giving a statement, then stop talking. Photograph your injuries when possible. The instinct to explain everything at the scene is the single biggest source of trouble in these files.
Will I get bail, and can I go home if the incident happened there?
Most people charged after a defensive incident are released, since the ordinary presumption of release applies. Where the other person lives with you or nearby, expect no-contact and no-go conditions that can keep you from your own home for a time; York Region bail runs through the Newmarket courthouse, with weekend courts for those held. We fight for workable conditions from the first appearance.
What happens if the court rejects self-defence?
Rejection of the defence does not mean the worst outcome. Depending on the evidence there may be arguments about intent, lesser included offences, or resolutions the Crown will accept short of trial, and sentencing in a genuine defensive-overreach case looks very different from a gratuitous assault. We prepare every file on all of those levels at once.
This page is legal information for people in Markham and York Region, not legal advice about any specific incident, and reading it does not create a lawyer and client relationship. It does not and cannot tell you how much force is permitted in advance; courts assess reasonableness after the fact on the full circumstances. Criminal Code provisions and court arrangements change over time. If you face charges, get advice about your own situation from a criminal defence lawyer. Kazandji Law serves Markham from its Thornhill office at 7191 Yonge St., Suite 310.