Self Defence Law in Canada: Retreat or Not to Retreat?
Justices Sharpe, Simmons, and Epstein JJ.A. held that, in short, a person is not required to “retreat” from his own home and was not something that the trial judge should have let the jury consider in their deliberations that ultimately returned a verdict of guilt on manslaughter. He was sentenced to a total of 12 years by the trial judge.
Self-defence, provocation, and the need to retreat.
The facts of this case stem gave rise to a charge of second-degree murder. The trial was held before a jury in Brampton, Ontario. Mr. Docherty killed the deceased, Tyson Weber, by stabbing him seven times in the neck. This all took place in a garage attached to Mr. Docherty’s home. Although Mr. Docherty did not testify, he did explain in a statement to police that he intentionally killed the assailant but claimed self-defence and provocation.
Section 34(2) of the Criminal Code does not mentioning “retreat
In this case, the Court of Appeal makes it very clear that not only is a duty to retreat not mention under the relevant self-defence provision of 34(2) in instances where the accused is not an initial aggressor. Conversely, section 35 does mention the issue of retreat but this is only in situations where the accused was the aggressor or provoked an assault upon themselves. The Court of Appeal stated:
 Where self-defence arises in circumstances, such as the present case, where the deceased was the initial aggressor and thus self-defence turns on the application of s. 34(2), there is no requirement that an accused person retreat from the initial assault: see R. v. Cain, 2011 ONCA 298, 278 C.C.C. (3d) 228 at para. 9, discussed in greater detail later in these reasons. [Emphasis added]
Similarly, the Court also pointed out that there is no obligation to retreat from one’s own home. They point out that this is a second and distinct doctrine on the notion of retreat. They pointed out that this was dealt with in the recent case of R. v. Forde, 2011 ONCA 592, 277 C.C.C. (3d) 1.Ultimately the Court concluded that the judge’s instructions were defective and necessitated a new trial on the manslaughter charge since the jury was told that his failure to retreat was a factor the jury could consider, all without further explanation on what that means.