The Law Courts building, which is home to B.C. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, is seen in Vancouver, on Thursday, November 23, 2023. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck

By The Canadian Press

B.C. judge says self-defence can include expelling someone who has outstayed welcome

Nov 13, 2025 | 1:54 PM

DUNCAN — A B.C. Supreme Court judge says self-defence rules that allow people to arm themselves against an intruder can also include situations where someone refuses to leave after initially being welcomed.

The ruling comes in the “tragic” case of a B.C. man acquitted of manslaughter by a jury in July, after he accidentally stabbed and killed his brother who had become an unwelcome guest in his home on the Ditidaht First Nation reserve on Vancouver Island.

Michael Edgar was charged after he “accidentally impaled” his brother Matthew Edgar with a knife in March 2022, in a fight as Michael tried to eject his brother.

Justice Gareth Morley’s reasons for allowing the jury to consider self-defence, released this week, say the Supreme Court of Canada found the Criminal Code’s language around defence of property against trespassers allows people in certain circumstances to arm themselves and “do things that would otherwise be crimes.”

Morley’s ruling rejected the Crown’s argument that self-defence doesn’t apply to using force to eject guests who wear out their welcome.

The Creative Edge

PEARCE: Beyond fear - how schools can support safety

22h ago

Question of the Week

Will the election of Avi Lewis as NDP leader improve the party's chances in the next federal election?

Mar 30, 2026

Looped In

LOOPED IN WITH NIKKI OMEN: March 30, 2026

Mar 30, 2026

He says such events happen in Canada “almost every night,” citing the situation of a nightclub bouncer using minimal force to eject a “rowdy patron” from a bar.

“Has every one of those unconsented-to touchings been a crime?, Morley’s ruling asks.

The judge found that no superior courts had previously reported a decision about whether the Criminal Code’s self-defence language, updated in 2011, “extends to acts of removing guests whose permission to be on premises has been revoked.”

The judge found that three provincial courts, however, have ruled on the issue and found the same thing.

“All three found that there is no legal difference between acts committed to remove an invitee who will not leave and acts committed to remove someone who entered the property without permission in the first place,” the ruling says.

Justice Morley published his reasons for allowing the jury to consider self-defence “because of the broader significance of the … issue, which appears not to have been considered by a superior court in Canada since the current language was enacted in 2011.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 13, 2025.

The Canadian Press