Decision to drop charges in home-intrusion case reinforces self defence contextual in Canada

Law360 Canada (March 2, 2026, 9:09 AM EST) --

John L. Hill

Charges were withdrawn this week against Jeremy David McDonald in Kawartha Lakes. An earlier indication that the charge might be dropped emerged after the Toronto Star reported that McDonald’s lawyer, Steven Norton, said the case had been adjourned to allow the standard review of evidence and discussions, including whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. The decision to charge McDonald had reignited a familiar, emotionally charged debate: how far can Canadians go in defending themselves at home?

Last August, McDonald woke in his Lindsay apartment to find an alleged intruder, Michael Kyle Breen, who police said was armed with a crossbow. An altercation ensued. Breen was seriously injured and hospitalized. McDonald was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. Breen faced multiple charges, including break and enter and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The case quickly became political. Ontario Premier Doug Ford declared that the decision to charge the homeowner showed “something is broken.” Kawartha Lakes Police Chief Kirk Robertson urged calm, noting that while individuals have the right to defend themselves and their property, the use of force must be proportionate to the threat.

That last point is where Canadian law lives and where public instinct often collides with legal reality.

Canada does not have an American-style “stand your ground” law. In parts of the United States, such as Florida, a person has no duty to retreat and may use force, including deadly force, if lawfully present and facing a perceived threat. That doctrine does not apply here.

Self-defence in Canada is governed by s. 34 of the Criminal Code. The law does not impose a strict duty to retreat, but retreat is one factor courts consider when assessing whether a person’s actions were reasonable. To succeed in a self-defence claim, three elements must be satisfied:

• The accused must believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used or threatened.
• The act must be committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves (or another person).
• The response must be reasonable in the circumstances.

That final requirement, reasonableness, does most of the work. Courts examine the immediacy of the threat, whether weapons were involved, the proportionality of the response, the relationship between the parties, and whether there was a safe avenue of escape. There is no automatic right to use lethal force merely because someone is in your home. There is no statutory immunity shield. And there is no blanket “castle doctrine” that overrides proportionality.

The Supreme Court has made this clear. In the case of Peter Khill, who shot and killed Jon Styres during a 2016 confrontation outside Khill’s home, many framed the issue as a Canadian test of “stand your ground.” Khill was initially acquitted, but the Supreme Court of Canada ordered a new trial, emphasizing that juries must carefully assess whether the accused’s perception and response were objectively reasonable (R. v. Khill, 2021 SCC 37). Khill was later convicted of manslaughter.

The court did not endorse a property-based right to shoot first. Instead, it reinforced that self-defence in Canada is contextual, restrained and fact-driven. That is precisely what appears to have unfolded in McDonald’s case. Police initially found reasonable grounds to lay charges. It was a low threshold. The Crown later reviewed additional evidence and concluded there was no longer a reasonable prospect of conviction because the evidence supported a self-defence claim.

This is not a contradiction. It is the system functioning as intended. Canada's self-defence law is deliberately balanced between two risks: criminalizing legitimate protection and excusing excessive violence. It acknowledges that split-second decisions are made in terrifying circumstances. But it also insists that force must be necessary and proportionate. Public reaction to cases like this often reflects a deeper anxiety about rising crime and personal vulnerability. When someone breaks into a home at night, instinct tells us the occupant should be free to do whatever it takes to protect themselves. The law agrees, but only up to a point. Canada allows people to defend themselves, even with lethal force in extreme circumstances. But it requires that such force be objectively reasonable, not motivated by anger, revenge or opportunity.

There is no American-style “stand your ground” doctrine here. Instead, there is a careful legal test that asks not only what the accused felt in the moment but also whether, viewed soberly and later, the response was justified. That may frustrate some. But it is the difference between a justice system grounded in necessity and one grounded in territory. In a country that prizes restraint over retribution, that distinction matters.

John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.