Conservative ‘Stand on Guard Act’ Would Make it Harder to Charge Homeowners Who Fight Back Against Intruders

A Conservative private member’s bill tabled in the House of Commons on Thursday aims to make it significantly harder for the state to prosecute Canadians who use force against intruders in their own homes.

Bill C-270, dubbed the “Stand on Guard Act” by its sponsor, Newmarket—Aurora MP Sandra Cobena, would amend Section 34 of the Criminal Code to create a legal presumption that force used against an unlawful intruder is justified.

“No one should be criminally charged for acting in self-defence,” Cobena said in a statement following the bill's introduction. “Too many Canadians have gone through long and costly trials just for defending themselves and their families.”

The legislation arrives against a backdrop of rising national concern over violent crime. The party points to Statistics Canada data showing violent crime has increased by 55%, gun crime by 130%, and extortion by a staggering 330% since 2015. While the national homicide rate has recently shown signs of stabilizing after a spike during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Conservatives argue that the judicial system has failed victims caught in the crossfire.

The proposed amendment seeks to upend the current legal balancing test for self-defence. At present, courts weigh a series of factors—including the nature of the threat, the proportionality of the response, and the possibility of retreat—to determine if the defendant acted reasonably.

If passed, C-270 would flip that dynamic. A judge or jury would be required to presume the use of force was reasonable the moment an intruder is determined to be on the property illegally. The burden of proof would then shift to Crown prosecutors to rebut that presumption, rather than leaving the accused to prove their innocence.

The bill is a direct response to cases like that of Cameron Gardiner, an Ontario resident who faced a legal odyssey after a 2019 home invasion. Despite being the victim of a break-in, Gardiner was arrested and charged. He was tried first for murder, and subsequently for manslaughter, before all charges were eventually dropped.

“While they did not take us up on our offer, the government still has a chance to help keep Canadians safe,” Cobena said, urging the Liberals and all MPs to support the bill.

The Conservative Party first signaled its intent to pursue a “Stand on Guard Act” last August, calling on the Liberal government to introduce legislation in the fall session. When the government declined to act, the party shifted to a private member's bill.

“We called on the Liberals to deliver results, and promised to act when they didn't,” said Melissa Lantsman, Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party. “Today, we're working to build a more just Canada—where protecting your loved ones doesn't land you in the dock.”

The bill has drawn comparisons to so-called “Castle Doctrine” laws in the United States, which grant homeowners broad latitude to use deadly force against intruders without fear of civil or criminal liability. Critics of such measures warn that they encourage vigilante justice and lead to unnecessary escalation, particularly in cases of mistaken identity or when the intruder is unarmed and retreating.

The current Section 34, last reformed in 2012 by the previous Conservative government, was designed to simplify self-defence provisions while maintaining a focus on “reasonableness” as an objective standard. Altering it to include a statutory presumption would mark a significant shift in Canadian criminal law.

As a private member's bill, C-270 must survive multiple votes in the House of Commons and clear the Senate, all while competing with the Carney Liberals' legislative agenda. However, even in a majority government, such bills occasionally gain traction if they tap into a broad public consensus.

Whether the Liberals or other opposition parties will support a measure that toughens the legal standard for prosecuting violent incidents inside homes remains to be seen. For now, the Poilievre Conservatives are framing the vote as a simple question: should Canadians be forced to worry about their legal fees while fighting for their lives?