Shooting scene in Oshawa

Shooting scene in Oshawa

A criminal lawyer says self-defence provisions in Canadian law are robust, despite second-degree murder charges levied last month on an Ontario man who shot a home intruder trying to commit robbery, 

Ali Mian, 22, of Milton, was charged with second degree murder for shooting one of five intruders intent on robbery who entered his home and that of his mother. The incident happened at 5 am, February 19.

Senior Contributor (Saskatchewan)

Lee Harding is the Senior Saskatchewan Contributor for the Western Standard and Saskatchewan Standard based in the Regina Bureau. He has served as the Saskatchewan Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Recommended for you

(12) comments


I have to agree with everyone. The right to self defense is a natural right and government has no right to limit it.

When an intruder wilfully enters your home, they made a choice and they abandon any rights.

To ask a citizen minding their own business to interpret the intent of an intruder is patently absurd. All protection personally deemed necessary is fair game.


It is interesting that you chose to interview a lawyer from the only jurisdiction in Canada where counsel must pronounce their pronouns in Court before speaking.


The criminal lawyer is wrong and quite possibly a moron.

Forward Thinking

Of course the lawyer is going to say that. He gets paid off all these ridiculous charges that get levied. If we had clear cut laws around self defense he would be out of a job. Lol


An absolute right to defend self or persons nust be very clearly defined. And no charges should be laid until a very good case is made that it was excessive given the circumstances.

When it's dark, you think there might be multiple assailants, you can't tell what they might be bringing for weapons, you have to assume deadly intent and react.

Trying to estimate threat level in the meantime will just get you killed. So you need to be ready. But as soon as you take any defensive action you are likely to be arrested, forced to burn your life savings in court system. To me, this is the police and government making you the victim of a second crime.

They'll take you and your guns away regardless how obviously the defense of life appears to be. The victim of a break in / attack is the guilty party and his/her life is ruined even if the charges are withdrawn by legal costs caused by legal defence from the charges.


Sure you can grab a knife but the attackers probably have better. And more. Good luck with that.

And a handgun locked in a safe with a trigger lock and the ammunition in a separate location and locked is not protection.

A rifle is a non starter. It carries several times the energy and can exit through your walls and through both sides of your neighbor's house as well and further.

There's nothing realistic about what the law permits in your defense of your life. All of it simply prevents effective defense and you're just supposed to acquiesce and accept that too bad, so sad, you lose.

And police? They aren't on scene in the critical moments, are they? The reason there's a word "murder" is because the police can't suddenly appear at the right place in time to save you. All they can do, usually, is try (often unsuccessfully) to find out who murdered you and even then try (also often unsuccessfully) to put them behind bars for the crime. But... you've already suffered the ultimate consequence.

Self defense in Alberta and Canada is a myth. The attackers have the upper hand from the second they arrive. And if you defend yourself, you are doomed from the second they arrive.

And many people do not accept that this is the best we get for permission to defend one's self, other occupants, and property. Saying self defense laws are adequate is just plain myopia. Gross stupidity.

And these laws are made by people who DO have armed protection.


The obvious solution is granting law-abiding Canadians the right to protect their property in whatever fashion they deem necessary at the time. When you’re awakened from a deep sleep in the middle of the night you may assess the threat to be greater than a judge sitting in a well-lit court room protected by armed guards. I would agree with the assessment of the property owner in that situation. If his decision is to use lethal force, so be it. If his aim is true, that will ensure one less repeat offender. Good riddance.


F. Tinning-I think you have stated the case for concealed carry very well. Thank you.


By virtue of remaining silent on the subject, the Criminal Code lays all responsibility and onus on the 'victim' to justify their actions. Regardless of what instrument is used, from an old vase to a shotgun, the minimum charges would still be assault with a weapon related. Firearms seizures to follow.

The only positive is that, financially ruined and subject of much maligning and criticism from the myopic msm/legacy and social media, you, (the 'victim/accused'), will be alive to face the judge.

Alberta Farmer

Our self defence laws are not adequate! This criminal lawyer is a woke globalist puppet! This piece of $h!t probably get the worst of the worst set free! If I feel myself, my family or my property is threatened I should have the right to shoot period!


The defense counsel failed to take into account a key point; The option to lay charges does not consider vagaries of the perspectives of the local police or crown prosecutors. This results in uneven and varying interpretations of the law and what they justice officials consider 'the public interest'. Case law is only one factor and even then initial charges may still be laid.

There are many factors, even location is critical - does a rural residence where police response if delayed over a denser urban area constitute a mitigating factor?

The upshot is that regardless of the circumstances of the incident, a charge, (usually multiple - appears to assist with plea bargaining), may be laid without regard to the costs to the alleged assailant (victim?). The financial and even social costs can be ruinous - especially at a jury trial - all for the act of self defense and even if found not guilty, none of the costs will be recovered. The crown, (indifferent to or counting on the costs as an incentive to a plea bargain?) and the defense all receive payment.

Perhaps in such instances, traditional prosecutorial immunity may be considered less absolute and a section may be amended for ease of cost recovery from the crown where it is apparent that any allegation of guilt was very questionable.


Five guys with weapons break into Ali Mian home where he lives with his mother. Ali, law abiding gun owner (he was never charged with a weapons offense) protects his mother. He get charged with murder.

Clearly the Self-defence laws in this country need still to be better spelled out.

The vagueness of the laws is benefitting the lawyers.


Follow the money, Its lawyers too that write these laws.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.