R v Khill

Khill shot a man rummaging in his pickup truck at night. He raised self-defence under the post-2013 s.34 framework. The SCC held that the accused's role in the incident — including his choice to confront rather than retreat or call police — is a relevant factor in assessing reasonableness.

At night, Khill heard noises outside his rural Ontario home. Rather than calling police, he loaded a shotgun, went outside, and confronted Peter Styres. He fatally shot Styres. He was charged with second-degree murder and acquitted at trial.

How is self-defence under the 2013 reforms (s.34 CCC) analysed? Does the accused's role in escalating the incident matter?

Yes — new trial ordered.

Section 34 lists factors in s.34(2) that bear on whether the act was reasonable in the circumstances. The list is non-exhaustive. The accused's role in the incident — including escalation, opportunities to retreat or de-escalate — is properly considered.

Martin J held that the trial judge erred by not directing the jury to consider Khill's role in the incident. Self-defence is not a license to escalate; the reasonableness assessment must take into account whether the accused contributed to the confrontation.

Modern leading case on self-defence post-Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act (2013). Together with Lavallee (1990) on battered woman syndrome and Khill on confrontation choices, defines the modern Canadian self-defence framework.

R v Khill, 2021 SCC 37, [2021] 3 SCR 8.

Wagner CJ, Moldaver J, Karakatsanis J, Côté J, Brown J, Rowe J, Martin J, Kasirer J, Jamal J