Bill C-26 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 22, 2011
- Debated in principleDec. 15, 2011
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 1, 2012
- Passed the second chamberJune 11, 2012
- Became lawJune 27, 2012
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Consiglio Di NinoSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- David Christophersoncalls it a law and order bill from the government that we can actually support and that does something positive.
- Mike Sullivanstates general support for the thrust of the bill and its principle.
- Robert GoguenDescribes the bill as a responsible expansion and long overdue simplification of the law.
- Harold AlbrechtDescribes bill as extension of work to balance criminal justice system favoring victims.
- Jack Harrisspeaks at third reading explaining the bill's origins in the Lucky Moose case and its amendments to the Criminal Code.
- Jean RousseauStates repeatedly that they will support the bill.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 22 November 2011, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons) (Citizen’s Arrest and Self-defence Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-26 amends section 494(2) of the Criminal Code to enable a private citizen who owns or has lawful possession of property, or persons authorized by them, to arrest within a reasonable time a person whom they find committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property. This power of arrest would only be authorized when there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is not feasible in the circumstances for the arrest to be made by a peace officer. It also amends the Criminal Code to simplify the provisions relating to the defences of property and persons.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
79% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,129 words introduced, 1,101 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core reforms enabling citizen's arrest on property and replacing complex self-defence rules with a simplified reasonableness test were retained. Refinements during passage changed discretionary factors into mandatory ones and added new considerations such as physical capabilities and prior interactions between parties.
- Changed court discretion on factors from permissive to mandatory and expanded the list.
Before: “In determining whether the act com- mitted is reasonable in the circumstances, the court may consider, among other factors,”
After: “In determining whether the act com- mitted is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances Factors of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes concrete lists of factors and specific arrest timing rules with repeated reasonableness standards that require case-by-case judgment. This leaves room for argument over what counts as reasonable force or a reasonable time.
Open to argument
“the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances”
This open-ended test invites prolonged debate over what force is justified in each case.“they make the arrest within a reasonable time after the offence is committed”
No fixed period is given, so parties must litigate what delay is acceptable.“they believe on reasonable grounds that it is not feasible in the circumstances for a peace officer to make the arrest”
Feasibility depends on subjective assessment of facts at the time.
Discretion. Section 4 leaves the entire Act's start date to an order of the Governor in Council with no statutory deadline or criteria.
Challenging the law itself. Vagueness and overbreadth claims under Charter s. 7 could be raised against the reasonableness standards, though the listed factors reduce the risk.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused can readily dispute whether their belief was on reasonable grounds or whether the force used was reasonable in the circumstances.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.