New Paragraph

Self defense in your own home: It’s bigger than fight or comply
September 8, 2025

There are always many rapidly changing dynamics

The rising number of home invasions and residential break and enter occurrences where residents are in their homes is concerning to say the least.


To add fuel to that fire, it has been reported that Canada now has more ‘home invasions’ per capita than our neighbors to the south. It is difficult to accurately compare Canadian and U.S. numbers due the vast differences between our countries as to how such data is collected, categorized and reported on. Although I don’t believe that any of our crime stats begin to compare to those of the U.S., the fact that Canada could even be close is alarming.


Media stories describing horrendous incidents of murder and the sexual assault of a child during one of these events, as well charges being levelled against a man that retaliated and seriously injured a criminal that broke into his apartment in the middle of the night, have churned up significant public debate. Subsequently, comments made by Premier Doug Ford regarding how he would react if victimized, as well as remarks made by an Ontario police Chief at a media scrum have brought the discussion to a fever-pitch.


Premier’s Comments

I totally get where Premier Ford is coming from following the City of Kawartha Lakes case, when he stated words to the effect that: “I’d rather be tried by twelve than carried by six”. I’ve said those very words, regarding ‘no other option’ scenarios, but I really don’t think politicians need to comment about issues before the courts without knowing all the facts.

We truly do not know the details of what happened in the case where both the intruder and the homeowner were charged by police, however, the police and the Crown Attorney do. The resulting trial may well show that the circumstances quite warranted both men being charged.

I suspect that although the man there would likely be justified to use deadly force against an intruder armed with a crossbow, perhaps at some point he went too far. Time will tell.


Comments by York Region Chief

I know Chief MacSween. He’s a bright and experienced police chief of one of the largest and best police services in this country.


I listened to his comments several times. What he said when commenting from his prepared text was in essence, “If at all possible get away from the situation and let the police handle it.” Those words were similar to the well-publicized terrorist attack adage: “Run, hide, fight”. In other words, don’t try to take on terrorists, RUN, and if you can’t run then HIDE, and if you can’t – then FIGHT like hell.


He also said he was, “...urging (people to) not to take matters into their own hands…”, and “…urge (people) to call 911 and do everything you can to keep yourself and your loved ones safe...” He added, “Don’t engage unless absolutely necessary…” That was his messaging and in my mind makes complete sense.


But then in answer to a reporter’s question, he said: “The best defense is to comply.” That short verbiage became the story that people are clinging to and IF that was all he said that day I’d be concerned too. But it’s not.


Only engaging to protect yourself or your loved ones does not mean comply and sit on your hands while your child is being sexually assaulted. My God, that is the last thing he would ever suggest or would ever do himself.


The Law

The right to use force in self-defense has been long entrenched in the Criminal Code of Canada, however it’s not a catch-all.


Section 34 gives the authority for anyone – not just police, to use force to defend themselves or another.

But it has to be “reasonable”. So, in the Kawartha Lakes case the question for the Judge or Jury to decide at trial will be, did the man use “reasonable” force to defend himself from the intruder?


In these cases, IF the perpetrator is disarmed, restrained or rendered unconscious, does section 34 give authority to the homeowner to continue to beat, or shoot or stab the perpetrator to death? NO. That would not be reasonable. When the perceived threat is gone, so is the authority to use deadly force in defense of yourself or loved ones. Being pissed off is not grounds to use force. Otherwise, every employee, supervisor, teacher, student, husband and wife, etc., would be justified every minute of every day.


The federal Leader of the Opposition, Pierre Poilievre, stated his belief that the fear of death or serious bodily harm should be “presumptive” in Canadian law. That’s dangerous in my view. We still must be accountable for the use of deadly force and not automatically be covered by presumptive legislation.


Otherwise, if your drunken neighbor who is known to you wanders into your home with nothing in his hands, you could presume he is there to cause serious bodily harm or death and shoot him. Is that we want in Canada? I don’t believe for a minute that it is. We are not a country where there are more guns than people and kids are not being shot here for playing nicky nicky nine door.


The current law allows for the Judge or Jury to decide whether the fear of death or serious bodily harm was reasonable and whether or not the amount of force used to retaliate was reasonable. I truly believe the police and courts will err on the side of caution in terms of prosecuting and convicting a person in the “iffy” situations that arise.


There will be extreme examples one way or another – some clearly a serious threat and others clearly not. If a stranger with a gun, knife or a crowbar kicks in your door at 3 am it would be an easy decision to use as much force as necessary. Of course, if you are subsequently able to disarm and gain physical control of them, you have most likely eliminated the threat.


Conversely, if an unarmed neighbor’s child comes into your home at 2 pm, in my view it is an easy call.


Then there are many greyer examples possible in between those extremes. In any of these cases, if you can get you and your family out of there to be safe when you hear a window or door broken, why not? I realize that these are tough life or death decisions for untrained citizens and every situation will be different – each one changing in a heartbeat. There’s always a ton of potential variables.


Police officers must make similar decisions every shift they work and even for trained professionals it is seldom easy.



Most often intruders have no intent to harm anyone, but they are just looking to steal and are surprised that anyone is home. It may be a case of “Give me your money and car keys and we’ll be out of here.” Fine. No personal property is worth losing your life over. Another judgment call on your part, but you would have to err on the side of caution. Hiding, fleeing or even negotiating with thieves that don’t want to be murderers may be the best response. It’s not totally “complying” per se but is more bartering to save lives.


What would I do?

When faced with a serious threat like an intruder entering my home at night (armed or unarmed – it can be difficult to determine), IF I could slip my family out a back door to safety, I would. If I could negotiate our way clear I would, and if I couldn’t do that or was unable to keep them or myself safe, I’d do anything humanly possible to neutralize the threat. That includes using deadly force with fists, feet, elbows, knees, teeth or whatever weapon I could get my hands on. At any step along the way, I’d notify police when possible and continue to make decisions in favour of the safety of my family, first and foremost.


What I wouldn’t do – nor would Chief MacSween I’m sure, is fold up like a cheap suit, cry, suck my thumb and let the bad guys do whatever they want to my family. Never.

 

Should the Police Chief be blamed for the misdeeds of subordinates?

By Chris Lewis • February 13, 2026
I say "No."

When Oversight Becomes Overreach: Why a Few Bad Officers Must Not Redefine Policing

By Chris Lewis • February 11, 2026
Policing depends on public trust. So does police oversight. When either loses credibility, both suffer and the public they are sworn to serve isn’t sure who to believe or where to turn. In recent years, calls for stronger police oversight have grown louder, often driven by a small number of high-profile misconduct cases. Confidence in institutions by the public – often fueled by ridiculous social media theories and damnations, is more fragile than in the past, and reputational damage spreads faster. Despite the fact that Canadian police officers operate under tight legislative and regulatory frameworks that exceed any other Canadian profession in my view, existing oversight bodies feel pressure to take action quickly when bad things happen, as isolated as they may be. But there is a risk in this moment that deserves equal attention: the risk of overreach. The seven officers who have been alleged to have committed crimes – including serious ones that involve organized crime, must not be allowed to redefine an entire profession. Public trust certainly adds urgency to this moment. When corruption cases like this surface, the public does not necessarily see them as isolated failures. They see a system that is broken and in my view in this instance they see that unfairly. Policing is unlike most professions. There are over 70,000 police officers in Canada, comprised of federal, provincial and municipal officers that work under the worst of circumstances at times and face the harshest of critics. As a result of the arrests of seven serving Toronto Police Service (TPS) officers as well as a retired officer, then the subsequent suspension of two additional TPS officers and two Peel Regional Police Service officers, a large portion of the Canadian public are focusing on the ‘bad’ and forgetting the wonderful and brave police work occurring in their communities 24/7. Officers exercise coercive authority on the public on behalf of the public, often in volatile environments. They have right to take away people’s liberty and in the worst of situations to take lives. That authority most definitely demands the greatest of accountability, but it also demands reasonable, sensible and balanced oversight. Oversight systems designed around ‘worst-case scenarios’ risk governing by exception rather than thoughtful considerations and reality. One of the most overlooked consequences of overly broad oversight is its impact on ethical officers. When serious misconduct is identified, entire services face scrutiny and as a result of the Inspector General of Policing’s announcement to inspect all 45 police services in Ontario, the impacts are far reaching and not isolated to the police service of the members in question. The risk is that the resulting collective stigma will not only damage public trust but will also hurt officer morale; officer initiative may decline; recruiting could be impacted; and the reputation of the entire profession across Ontario will be damaged because of the alleged actions of a few. Oversight that blurs critical lines risks judging officers by association rather than their individual conduct. Officer trust in the oversight system and public trust in the policing profession could both be further harmed. As a result, both the Toronto Police Association and the Police Association of Ontario have rightfully expressed their concern regarding the inspection of all of Ontario’s police services. Their distress is that the announcement may be read by many that police corruption is rife across the province. At this point we do not know how much of this alleged criminal activity occurred off duty, versus on. We don’t know all the details of what they may have done and how, let alone what processes, policies or systems within the TPS that may have to be examined by the Inspector General. He may well have identified them all, but perhaps not. As the investigation portion by police continues, more things for inspection may be identified. In the meantime, I have no doubt that Ontario’s police Chiefs are reviewing their processes based on what they know so far, to ensure their policies, systems and internal oversight mechanisms are as tight as they can reasonably be. The seven charged officers are suspended and before the courts. The justice system is entrusted with dealing with these allegations from here. Others not charged but under investigation are suspended as well. There was no rush to begin a review process as this unfolds. Announcing that it will occur when the criminal investigation is complete and when they are armed with a more fulsome understanding of the issues that should be examined, would have been more appropriate. None of this lessens the need for accountability. It argues for thoughtful processes, analysis and reporting. Misconduct should be addressed decisively and dealt with through due process as it is, but broad oversight driven by isolated wrongdoings risks weakening the institutions we all depend on. Public trust matters. Undoubtedly. But so does institutional trust in police officers. In my view, processes that signal broad-based suspicion undermine the trust they are meant to protect. Oversight works best when it is firm, fair, and controlled.

Police corruption arrests: How do we move on from here?

By Chris Lewis • February 7, 2026
Thursday’s announcement of the arrest of seven serving and one retired Toronto police officers for corruption, was a dark moment for policing in Canada and for the communities that trust their police to always do what is honest and right. At times like this it is too easy for us all to lose trust in those in which we should hold the highest level of trust in society, because of the actions of a few. I believe that we must remind ourselves about all that is good in policing in Canada – where training, standards, equipment, professionalism, governance and competence are second to none in the world. I view this as both bad news and good news stories. The bad news is that seven officers allegedly broke their oaths and committed heinous crimes. Startling, sad and completely unacceptable for the profession and more importantly for the public they were sworn to serve. The “good” news (although I struggle with the word) is that the system worked. Suspicions arose about a certain Toronto Police (TPS) officer’s potential involvement in a crime in York Region. Police there notified the Chief of the TPS, and they quickly agreed that York Regional Police (YRP) would lead the investigation, and TPS would remain in a support role by providing Professional Standards investigators and other assistance as required. I assume that would mean investigative support personnel and access to internal information about the TPS officers in question, like their schedules; what police cars they were driving; assignments and personnel file information, at minimum. By design, the TPS Chief did not have decision-making authority in the investigation. None of that raises any red flags for me. This was a large and complex investigation that eventually involved 400 officers and would require highly experienced investigators and specialty personnel. YRP and TPS have all of that and more. The leaders that addressed the media spoke competently and professionally, leaving no doubt that they would leave no stone unturned. Evidence was gathered and arrests of officers and others were made. The public was then appropriately advised of as many details as we have ever seen released in a media conference when charges were before the courts and an investigation ongoing. TPS Chief Demkiw announced he was seeking to suspend at least some of the officers without pay. That is something that has only recently became acceptable under Ontario’s policing regulations and must be used judiciously. Of course, social media “experts” and anti-police pundits took over from there. Please allow me to offer answers to some of the most consistent queries: Why wasn’t an independent oversight body like the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) brought on to investigate? Police shouldn’t investigate police! It’s not the legislated mandate of the SIU to conduct criminal investigations into police except in specific circumstances around police use of force or sexual assault. Nor is it the mandate of Ontario’s Inspectorate of Policing. These governing bodies do not possess the expertise or resources to conduct massive criminal investigations into officers and organized crime groups. Only large police services have the critical mass and knowledge to manage such difficult operations. An option for Chief Demkiw was to let his Professional Standards personnel be the liaison for TPS information and potential Police Act charges against TPS personnel that might emerge but leave the investigative support/assistance piece to another large outside service. That would’ve helped suppress any concern around TPS investigating their own. But police services often conduct criminal investigations into their own people with regularity in Ontario, unless they involve senior officers. There’s no hard and fast rule or Ministry guidelines on the issue to my knowledge. The Toronto Chief should step down. This happened under his watch. I cannot speak to his day-to-day job performance, but in my view, Chief Demkiw did not handle this case wrongly. The alleged illegal actions of 0.12% of his police personnel do not justify his removal. If he knew and didn’t take action that would be different but there is no suggestion of him doing anything but throwing his full support behind the YRP investigation. Again, perhaps he should’ve kept TPS out of it as much as possible, but that was a judgement call made in the early stages of an investigation that grew very large over time. All cops are corrupt. Why didn’t other officers stop them? What? This was seven officers in a police service of almost 6000 TPS officers and out of over 70,000 police officers in Canada. It is awful, without a doubt and concerning to say the least, but this does not mean there is a wave of police corruption and ties to organized crime across the nation. As this criminality unfolded and as we speak, thousands of officers are on the streets of Canada, saving lives and risking their own; patrolling communities; preventing crime and victimization; responding to life and death situations; arresting evil criminals and more. They do that professionally, bravely and honestly, or they are held to account under various laws and disciplinary processes. They are governed and regulated more than any other profession in Canada. Yes, some cops (even one is too many) out of those 70,000, commit crimes in their careers, which is unacceptable. Some of that occurs while they are on duty, some not. It is disappointing when it happens, but with rare exception police leaders will not accept it and will deal with it expeditiously through due process. In cases where a police supervisor or executive doesn’t take proper action, they will be held to account as well. As a rule, no one hates dirty cops more than honest cops. They hurt the profession as a whole across the continent. Canadian officers take a reputational hit regardless of where the wrongdoing occurs in North America. We don’t know the details yet of what these accused officers were doing or how much of it they were doing on the job, versus off duty. IF evidence comes to light in the ongoing investigation that colleague officers knew or participated in any way in the criminality, they will be in trouble as well. Let’s not jump to conclusions that other officers “must have known” and let the investigation run its course. Why do officers not have more oversight on the use of police databases? Police officers and a number of civilian colleagues have access to the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) database that holds all licenced driver and vehicle registration information in Ontario. Most police cars have computers in them that can access that information, which includes driver’s and owners’ addresses. It is accessed non-stop, 24/7, as a regular part of core police business. Other databases involving outstanding warrants and criminal history, as well as occurrence records are similarly accessed. Government employees that work at MTO or in some other Ministries have like access to people’s names and addresses. That is reality in all 10 provinces. We cannot limit legitimate government employee access to vital systems on the off chance they may be inappropriately used. That includes those that we entrust to carry guns and make life and death decisions. When such databases are misused in some way, proper action must be taken promptly, as it was in this case, as opposed to hamstringing the operability of several hundred thousand honest employees across Canada. Canadian police officers are internationally highly-regarded, but they are human, have frailties and will honestly err on occasion while truly trying to do their best. That can be dealt with and repaired when it occurs. But when officers commit acts of malice, they will be appropriately held accountable and dealt with through due process. That is the bedrock of Canadian policing. Public trust in police is paramount to effective policing, and largely we enjoy that in our country. We cannot let this dark day define what policing actually is in Toronto or anywhere in Canada. Canadians should move forward with confidence that the system did work in this case. Those that violated our trust are before the courts. The vast, vast majority of officers that are still out there bravely doing what they do so well, will never let us down. Please give them a chance.