Self-Defense in Canada: Lessons from the Lindsay, Ontario Homeowner Case

When news broke in August 2025 that a homeowner in Lindsay, Ontario was charged after allegedly stabbing an armed intruder, the story quickly spread across the province. To many, it seemed unthinkable: how could someone defending their home face criminal charges?

Yet under Canadian criminal law, the rules around self-defense are not as straightforward as people assume.

This blog post unpacks the Lindsay case, explains how self-defense works under the Criminal Code of Canada, and shows how law students preparing for the Ontario bar exam can use this real-world example as a study tool.

The Lindsay, Ontario Case: What Happened?

On August 18, 2025, police in Lindsay responded to a violent confrontation inside an apartment on Kent Street.

• The intruder: A 41-year-old man allegedly broke into the residence through a window, armed with a crossbow.
• The homeowner: A 44-year-old man, later identified as Jeremy David McDonald, confronted the intruder. During a physical struggle, the homeowner used a knife.
• The outcome: The intruder suffered serious injuries and was airlifted to a trauma centre.
• The charges:
  • The intruder was charged with break-and-enter, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, mischief, and probation violations.
  • The homeowner, however, was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

The case sparked debate across Ontario, especially after Premier Doug Ford publicly stated that something was “broken” if a homeowner could be charged for defending against an armed intruder (CBC News report).

Why Was the Homeowner Charged?

This was the question many Canadians asked: if someone breaks into your home with a crossbow, shouldn’t you be allowed to fight back?

The answer lies in how Canadian law defines self-defense.

The Standard: Reasonable Force

Under Section 34 of the Criminal Code of Canada, a person can defend themselves if:

1. They believe, on reasonable grounds, that force is being used (or threatened) against them.
2. Their actions are for the purpose of defending themselves or someone else.
3. The force they use is reasonable in the circumstances.

It’s the third part — reasonable force — that makes cases like Lindsay complicated.

• If the intruder was pointing a crossbow, stabbing with a knife may be seen as proportional.
• But if the intruder had already been disarmed or was retreating, continued force could be labeled excessive.

This distinction explains why police laid charges: to let the courts decide whether the knife attack went beyond what was legally reasonable.

Self-Defense in Canada: Codified but Shaped by Common Law

Many assume self-defense is just “common sense,” but in Canada it is codified in the Criminal Code.

• Historically, self-defense was recognized under common law principles developed by judges.
• In 2012, Parliament passed Bill C-26, which reformed and simplified the law. Now, s.34 governs nearly all self-defense scenarios.

The provision incorporates common law ideas — imminence, necessity, proportionality — but places them in statute form.

For law students, this means you must know both the text of s.34 and how courts interpret “reasonable force” in real cases.

Public Reaction: The Debate on Homeowner Rights

The Lindsay case reignited a larger policy debate: should Canadians have stronger legal protections when defending their homes?

• Supporters of the homeowner argue that confronting an intruder with a crossbow at 3 a.m. is a clear life-or-death situation. Using a knife should not be considered excessive.
• Critics of “unlimited force” point out that Canada does not follow the U.S. castle doctrine, which gives homeowners broad immunity. Instead, Canadian law balances the right to self-defense with the principle that even intruders retain the right to life.

Premier Ford’s comments highlighted the tension between public perception and legal standards.

This itself is a valuable lesson for future lawyers: the law on paper often clashes with what the public expects.

Applying the Law: How a Court Might Decide

To analyze this like a bar exam question, apply s.34 step by step:

1. Reasonable Belief of Threat – The intruder was armed with a crossbow. This satisfies the requirement.
2. Purpose of Defense – The homeowner acted to protect himself. Likely satisfied.
3. Reasonableness of Force – This is the central issue.

In favour of the homeowner:

• Faced a deadly weapon.
• Acted quickly in the night.
• Used available means to survive.

Against the homeowner:

• If the stabbing went beyond neutralizing the threat.
• If the intruder was no longer armed or was retreating.
• The Crown may argue it crossed into excessive force.

This mirrors the type of reasoning law students must practice: weighing facts against statutory requirements.

Turning Real Cases into Bar Exam Practice

The Lindsay case is not just a headline; it’s a ready-made bar exam fact pattern.

Sample Multiple-Choice Question

A homeowner confronts an intruder armed with a crossbow. The homeowner stabs the intruder with a knife, causing life-threatening injuries. Under s.34 of the Criminal Code, which is the strongest argument for the homeowner’s defense?

A. A person may always use unlimited force against an intruder.
B. The homeowner reasonably believed force was threatened and acted to protect himself.
C. Any force used in one’s home is automatically lawful.
D. The homeowner cannot be guilty since the intruder committed break-and-enter.

Correct Answer: B

Sample Fact Pattern Question

Discuss whether the homeowner in the Lindsay, Ontario case can successfully rely on s.34 of the Criminal Code. Consider proportionality, the intruder’s weapon, and the seriousness of the injuries.

This type of short-answer question teaches students to structure responses around statutory requirements and factual application — the exact skills tested on bar exams.

Key Takeaways for Law Students

• Self-defense in Canada is codified in s.34 of the Criminal Code.
• The defense depends on whether the force used was reasonable and proportional.
• Real-world cases like the Lindsay homeowner incident show how fact-driven this analysis can be.
• For bar exam prep, these cases are excellent practice: they combine statutory interpretation, issue-spotting, and critical reasoning.

Conclusion: Why BarBuddy Uses Real Cases

At BarBuddy, we believe the best way to prepare for the bar exam is to practice applying the law to real-world scenarios.

The Lindsay, Ontario homeowner case isn’t just news — it’s a living example of how criminal law works in practice.

If you want to sharpen your exam skills:

• Work through BarBuddy’s 160 multiple-choice questions.
• Practice with full exam simulations.
• Engage with fact patterns inspired by real cases like Lindsay.

👉 Start practicing with BarBuddy today.

‍