‘You do not have a duty to retreat’: A criminal defence lawyer details how far you can go in defending your family and home

Video

This week, an Ontario homeowner defended himself against a man breaking into his residence, only to be charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. The fact that the man protecting his property could face jail time has sparked a heated conversation across the country, and was even raised by Premier Doug Ford, who said our justice system is “broken.” Toronto criminal defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger explains what Canadian law says about how far we can go to defend our homes and families, and whether there’s room for improvement.

You can listen to this episode on Amazon, Apple, and Spotify.

Program Transcript

This is an automated transcript. Please check against delivery.

HARRISON LOWMAN: welcome to Hub Hits. I’m Harrison Lowman, managing editor of the hub this week, a 44 year old man in Lindsay, Ontario, awoke at 3am to find an intruder in his house. He fought back. The intruder was left with life threatening injuries. He also faces four charges, including possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose and break and enter. He was already wanted by police for a separate matter, the homeowner, if you can believe it, was charged with a great aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, the fact that he could face jail time has sparked a heated conversation in this province and in this country. For more on that. I’m joined by Joseph Neuberger. He’s a Toronto criminal offence criminal defence lawyer, thanks so much for joining us, Joseph. I really appreciate it.

JOSEPH NEUBERGER: My pleasure, my pleasure.

HARRISON LOWMAN: So let’s dive into the heart of this. What are your rights in Canada when it comes to protecting your property, protecting your family when someone’s breaking in at 3am at night?

JOSEPH NEUBERGER: So you have broad rights. So in Canada, we have the right to protect our property and to protect ourselves in our home, and anyone who’s in that home as well, so friends and family and children, of course. So if an individual enters your home, you’re assuming they’re there for a nefarious purpose, and you can use what we term reasonable force to repel the threat. It’s important to note that there has to be a threat to you, so one aspect of that is a stranger coming into your home late at night, you would have a reasonable fear at that point for your own safety and that of others, and that you’re at risk of bodily harm, or, God forbid, being killed, and therefore you can use proportional force to repel this individual, subdue them and stop them from their conduct.

HARRISON LOWMAN: And what is excessive force? And do you think it was used? I know the details are still emerging in this case. Is that what seems to have been used in this case?

JOSEPH NEUBERGER: Well, we don’t know. And I you know, it’s a perplexing case, because, as I understand, the individual is charged not only with the break and enter, but also with possession of a weapon dangerous. So that would mean something like a knife or possibly something else. It could be some other instrument. And so the person who is charged would have engaged in some sort of fight with them in order to disarm them and stop them from conducting their behaviour. But what I’m assuming is the force that was used in the circumstances went well beyond what was necessary to incapacitate the individual. But generally speaking, the law is and the right of a person is when you’re in the heat of the moment, woken up. You’re terrified. You can’t believe this is happening. You can imagine the bewilderment and the shock. You’re not expected by the law or by courts to carefully measure and mete out exactly what is the exact force to use, or what weapon to use.

But for example, hypothetically, somebody comes into the house and they’re unarmed, they’re not brandishing any type of weapon. And you then use a weapon, let’s say a bat. That’s a an instrument I’ve been talking about in media, and you strike the person a number of times, but you do not stop. In other words, the person’s incapacitated, and when they’re no longer a threat, instead of availing oneself of the 911, call, the assault is continued, and then the person suffers the intruder, suffers life altering injuries or possibly death, that’s when the force used has no longer been proportional, but has been excessive and resulted in serious harm or death, and that’s where charges can can occur. That’s just one type of example.

HARRISON LOWMAN: And how do Canadian courts view I don’t know what some of the lay person would call lethal force, the use of lethal force, and when that’s ever warranted?

JOSEPH NEUBERGER: So in a lethal force case, an individual would be charged with a murder. So typically, those would be tried by a jury, although with the consent of the Attorney General, you can have a trial in front of the judge alone. I think both judges and and juries are very, very careful about these types of cases they have, I think, not just sympathy, but great respect for a person’s right to defend their home and their loved ones within that home. So there’s a fair breadth of of activity that would be deemed accessible, especially if there’s lethal force, again, if an individual enters carrying, you know, a very small knife, and then somebody who’s a lawful gun owner pulls out a gun and shoots immediately and kills them and fires several shots. That’s going to be a difficult case. They may succeed at trial, but it’s a difficult case because, again, the weapon which is brought into the circumstances, especially if there’s more than one shot, could be quite excessive in the circumstances, but there is quite a bit of lenience for use of force, because when somebody is in your home, and if the person dies during the course of the altercation, again, the person who is the homeowner is under fear that they themselves or their family are going to be harmed or killed.

HARRISON LOWMAN: So you mentioned guns, I think you can get in trouble too, for even, you know, firing what is called a warning shot, in terms of discharging a firearm here in Canada, all talk of guns makes us think of the US. Do you have any sense of how you know we compare to the US when it comes to the use of what is quote, unquote, reasonable force?Whether that definition is different south of the border?

JOSEPH NEUBERGER: That’s an excellent question. So in the United States, they have the Castle doctrine. So what that means is an individual can defend themselves on their property with a full extent of force necessary to incapacitate the individual. So that means they can brandish a firearm, shoot and kill, and they don’t have the same concept of excessive force, given the Castle law that said, That’s not across all jurisdictions the United States. And of course, gun ownership in the United States is a is a second amendment right. We don’t have that in Canada, but like the case that we had in Milton, a lawful gun owner is facing two, three or four individuals who come into the home, one of which or more would be having in their possession of firearm, one of which is brandishing them. If you’re a lawful gun owner and you’re facing that in your home, and you retrieve that your own firearm and shoot to kill, because you’re faced with several individuals who are armed with firearms, you’re well within your rights.

HARRISON LOWMAN: So, and you’re talking about Canada here. So if I’m a Canadian lawful gun owner, and you know, my house is being broken into in three, three in the morning, and these people are also armed with guns. I have, you know, the ability.

JOSEPH NEUBERGER: Full right to defend yourself, and if you kill them, look I mean, again, police may charge like they did in Milton, but I would be it would be hard pressed for a jury to render a conviction. We have cases with gang members defending shootings in public when they believe that the other individual has either is about to pull a firearm or has pulled a firearm on them, and they can be found not guilty because of self defence. They may be guilty of possession of illegal firearms, but at least the murder charge is defended on self defence. The same applies to a lawful gun owner who’s protecting themselves and their family from home invasion, where these people are carrying firearms.

HARRISON LOWMAN: So Joseph, this runs counter somewhat to the narrative that’s come out of this story. And I know there’s still you know, details to be filled in, but the narrative is that there’s a deficit here are we are Canadians are lacking when it comes to the ability to defend their property, their families, when a criminal is breaking in at night and they want to defend themselves. How do you view you know from given your degrees, given your profession, here your experience, you know whether there is a deficit or isn’t? How do you consider this?

JOSEPH NEUBERGER: Look, I think you know, we had our self defence laws revised a number of years ago under the Conservative government, and the case law is very clear. I think we have broad self defence rules in place and the proper legal test to deal with these types of situations. It it may be a situation where the police feel, because of the force used and the injury suffered by the intruder, that this was a case that called for an aggravated assault charge. It’s very hard to comment unless we know more about what happened in the altercation, but we do have robust self defence rules here in Canada. It’s not like the other thing I’ll mention is, you know, there’s no duty to retreat in Canada, so if somebody approaches in the home, you don’t have to go run and hide or exit the home, although in certain circumstances, I’m not saying that that wouldn’t be that if you’re able to remove yourself and your family from the home and call police without any type of altercation.

That’s a far better course of action so that you don’t incur any risk of harm to yourself, but you do not have a duty to retreat. You do not have a duty to not engage in trying to protect yourself and your family. So these are fairly strict and good rules in place for self defence in Canada. I just think here there are a few cases we don’t deal with this often, because this doesn’t occur often where we have a homeowner who’s defending themselves, and it results in very serious injury to the intruder or death. We don’t have that, so that’s why I think we’re grappling with it, and the police may need more guidance, depending upon what facts come out in this case.

HARRISON LOWMAN: Does it change Joseph, if you’re defending your family, if he had kids in the house, if there was a threat to their lives? Does it change if he’s a father, if he’s a husband?

JOSEPH NEUBERGER: Yeah, so, it shouldn’t in law. So if you’re defending yourself, that’s good enough. You know, property, chattels can all be replaced. So if you can remove yourself from the circumstances, don’t worry about your your jewellery or your TV. Get out of there. But defending yourself is equally as appropriate. Of course, the optics if you have young children or vulnerable individuals in your home that’s a heightened degree of stress, that’s a heightened degree of fear you don’t want your loved ones being harmed, especially your children or elderly parents. And so the optics in those circumstances are certainly an accused favour, and I’m very much in favour for robust self defence rules, especially in home invasion situations. I just think we have to be careful not to go as far as the Castle doctrine the United States, because we shouldn’t just authorise any type of lethal force regardless of the threat posed. I mean, it’s the imminent nature of the force, what type of risk you’re facing at that time, the particulars of the individual who comes in. There’s all sorts of factors that come into play, and I don’t want a broad brush to deal with every single situation, especially in a case where somebody who comes into the home may not pose such a significant threat and they wind up dead.

HARRISON LOWMAN: You predicted my next question, which was, yeah, where there’s potential room for improvement when it comes to self defence? And I think you just answered that.

JOSEPH NEUBERGER: Yeah. I mean, I just, you know, there are circumstances where somebody may be in their lawful right, but then, because of, you know, other circumstances, they continue in the assault and the beating, and somebody winds up dead, particularly if you have a home intruder come in and they’re just, they’re committing a break and enter, but they don’t really have any weapons on them, and they’re beaten to death. And this is a hypothetical. I’m not at all suggesting this happened in this case, that this was what this person did. This is just a hypothetical. But if we, if we get to those circumstances, we pride ourselves as Canadians on a much more civil society, and I think we have to be very careful to protect against those situations, and that’s why I like the flexibility that we have in the law at present.

HARRISON LOWMAN: Final few questions here, obviously, and we talked about this previously, as he often does, Premier Ford dipped his toes into this matter, and he came out yesterday and talked about how something’s broken with the justice system. You know how you should be able to, you know people aren’t able to protect their families. He said, if an intruder has a weapon, you should be able to use all resources necessary to protect your families. What did you make of his remarks as the premier? And then, I guess secondly, what can he do to change any of this? Does he have any powers at his disposal to to do anything here. Or do you think that was just a, you know, offhand remark at a press conference?

JOSEPH NEUBERGER: I think our Premier is given to being rather impulsive in his comments and his responses are emotional. I think it’s an emotional topic. He certainly has been talking about crime. You know, quietly, statistics came out for the 2024, police statistics on crime. It has been going down, but he’s an emotional, responding individual, and I just, I wish there was a little bit more restraint, because every time he says something is broken, something is broken, it tells the public that we. A broken system. And trust me, look, I’m a criminal defence lawyer. I have my complaints about various aspects, but I have been a champion to say that our criminal justice system in Ontario and Canada is very good. It’s a beacon in the world, and we do not suffer problems like they do in the United States. And I don’t want to see us moving towards US-style, system. So it’s unfortunate. I understand his impulsive I understand that he wants to be on the side of the homeowner against a criminal who comes into a home, but it’s not helpful.

I think what he should say is I am concerned about the homeowner being charged. We don’t know enough right now, but if this is an inappropriate overreach of police for charging certainly my office and the Solicitor General’s office will look into this. These are the type of measured comments I’d like to see from a leader, as opposed to saying something is broken. And I’m going to go a bit further, because he said this about the criminal justice system. And quite oddly, as we know, the provincial government can’t change federal criminal laws that that is the purview of the federal government. So that’s, that’s the Liberal government. It’s minority, but it’s, it’s the parliament who would put federal legislation through for criminal law, but it’s the Ontario government that appoints the Provincial Court judges who sit in the Ontario Court of Justice. The solicitor general is the one who’s in charge of policing in Ontario, so they have a very significant influence on police policies and on appointments of judges.

And when he keeps saying that something must be broken, and the system’s broken, you know, his government actually has been making very good appointments to the bench. You know, a slew of appointments recently, of some crown attorneys and some defence lawyers have been excellent appointments. They will do an excellent job as judges in our system. And so I’ve given credit. And I say over and over that, I think the Ford government has made some very good decisions in that regard, I just wish he’d refrain from this type of hyperbole, because it does not help build confidence in our system and it attacks the rule of law.

HARRISON LOWMAN: Joseph, can you and I agree, maybe not broken, but parts of it are broken. Can we leave it at that, that needs fixing?

JOSEPH NEUBERGER: I don’t think parts of it are broken. I think there needs to be tweaking. I think, you know, certain things on bail needs need some attention. And I think that’s an application of education of JPs who are handling certain bail cases. I think we also need to take a look at how certain cases are prosecuted. Nothing’s perfect. We are never going to get close to perfect. That just won’t happen. So I will agree that there are frailties in the system and things that need to be done. I also think we need to invest in policing more. I will say this. I don’t think our, our our cities are, are have enough funds to invest in policing. I think much more needs to be done about the flow of firearms from the United States. That’s where the majority of these illegal weapons are coming from. So we need to boost up our Canadian border security services, our police services, our special project units. These are areas that we need heavy investment in, and we should not be pulling back on their funding.

HARRISON LOWMAN: That is Joseph Neuberger. He’s a Toronto criminal defence lawyer. Thank you so much for joining us at Hub Hits today, we really appreciate it.

JOSEPH NEUBERGER: My pleasure. Thank you for having me on. Take care.

Harrison Lowman and ladies and gents, if you want more commentary and analysis on crime, economics, business, politics, etc, you can head to www.thehub.ca and why not become a paid member to get exclusive content. You can do that for a buck a week. We thank you for doing so. Thanks for joining us today. I’m Harrison Lowman, managing editor of the hub.

The Hub Staff

The Hub’s mission is to create and curate news, analysis, and insights about a dynamic and better future for Canada in a…

Watch on

Hub AI

This week, an Ontario homeowner defended himself against a man breaking into his residence, only to be charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. The fact that the man protecting his property could face jail time has sparked a heated conversation across the country, and was even raised by Premier Doug Ford, who said our justice system is “broken.” Toronto criminal defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger explains what Canadian law says about how far we can go to defend our homes and families, and whether there’s room for improvement. You can listen to this episode on Amazon, Apple, and Spotify. Program Transcript This is an automated transcript. Please check against delivery. HARRISON LOWMAN: welcome to Hub Hits. I’m Harrison Lowman, managing editor of the hub this week, a 44 year old man in Lindsay, Ontario, awoke at 3am to find an intruder in his house. He fought back. The intruder was left with life threatening injuries. He also faces four charges, including possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose and break and enter. He was already wanted by police for a separate matter, the homeowner, if you can believe it, was charged with a great aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, the fact that he could face jail time has sparked a heated conversation in this province and in this country. For more on that. I’m joined by Joseph Neuberger. He’s a Toronto criminal offence criminal defence lawyer, thanks so much for joining us, Joseph. I really appreciate it. JOSEPH NEUBERGER: My pleasure, my pleasure. HARRISON LOWMAN: So let’s dive into the heart of this. What are your rights in Canada when it comes to protecting your property, protecting your family when someone’s breaking in at 3am at night? JOSEPH NEUBERGER: So you have broad rights. So in Canada, we have the right to protect our property and to protect ourselves in our home, and anyone who’s in that home as well, so friends and family and children, of course. So if an individual enters your home, you’re assuming they’re there for a nefarious purpose, and you can use what we term reasonable force to repel the threat. It’s important to note that there has to be a threat to you, so one aspect of that is a stranger coming into your home late at night, you would have a reasonable fear at that point for your own safety and that of others, and that you’re at risk of bodily harm, or, God forbid, being killed, and therefore you can use proportional force to repel this individual, subdue them and stop them from their conduct. HARRISON LOWMAN: And what is excessive force? And do you think it was used? I know the details are still emerging in this case. Is that what seems to have been used in this case? JOSEPH NEUBERGER: Well, we don’t know. And I you know, it’s a perplexing case, because, as I understand, the individual is charged not only with the break and enter, but also with possession of a weapon dangerous. So that would mean something like a knife or possibly something else. It could be some other instrument. And so the person who is charged would have engaged in some sort of fight with them in order to disarm them and stop them from conducting their behaviour. But what I’m assuming is the force that was used in the circumstances went well beyond what was necessary to incapacitate the individual. But generally speaking, the law is and the right of a person is when you’re in the heat of the moment, woken up. You’re terrified. You can’t believe this is happening. You can imagine the bewilderment and the shock. You’re not expected by the law or by courts to carefully measure and mete out exactly what is the exact force to use, or what weapon to use. But for example, hypothetically, somebody comes into the house and they’re unarmed, they’re not brandishing any type of weapon. And you then use a weapon, let’s say a bat. That’s a an instrument I’ve been talking about in media, and you strike the person a number of times, but you do not stop. In other words, the person’s incapacitated, and when they’re no longer a threat, instead of availing oneself of the 911, call, the assault is continued, and then the person suffers the intruder, suffers life altering injuries or possibly death, that’s when the force used has no longer been proportional, but has been excessive and resulted in serious harm or death, and that’s where charges can can occur. That’s just one type of example. HARRISON LOWMAN: And how do Canadian courts view I don’t know what some of the lay person would call lethal force, the use of lethal force, and when that’s ever warranted? JOSEPH NEUBERGER: So in a lethal force case, an individual would be charged with a murder. So typically, those would be tried by a jury, although with the consent of the Attorney General, you can have a trial in front of the judge alone. I think both judges and and juries are very, very careful about these types of cases they have, I think, not just sympathy, but great respect for a person’s right to defend their home and their loved ones within that home. So there’s a fair breadth of of activity that would be deemed accessible, especially if there’s lethal force, again, if an individual enters carrying, you know, a very small knife, and then somebody who’s a lawful gun owner pulls out a gun and shoots immediately and kills them and fires several shots. That’s going to be a difficult case. They may succeed at trial, but it’s a difficult case because, again, the weapon which is brought into the circumstances, especially if there’s more than one shot, could be quite excessive in the circumstances, but there is quite a bit of lenience for use of force, because when somebody is in your home, and if the person dies during the course of the altercation, again, the person who is the homeowner is under fear that they themselves or their family are going to be harmed or killed. HARRISON LOWMAN: So you mentioned guns, I think you can get in trouble too, for even, you know, firing what is called a warning shot, in terms of discharging a firearm here in Canada, all talk of guns makes us think of the US. Do you have any sense of how you know we compare to the US when it comes to the use of what is quote, unquote, reasonable force?Whether that definition is different south of the border? JOSEPH NEUBERGER: That’s an excellent question. So in the United States, they have the Castle doctrine. So what that means is an individual can defend themselves on their property with a full extent of force necessary to incapacitate the individual. So that means they can brandish a firearm, shoot and kill, and they don’t have the same concept of excessive force, given the Castle law that said, That’s not across all jurisdictions the United States. And of course, gun ownership in the United States is a is a second amendment right. We don’t have that in Canada, but like the case that we had in Milton, a lawful gun owner is facing two, three or four individuals who come into the home, one of which or more would be having in their possession of firearm, one of which is brandishing them. If you’re a lawful gun owner and you’re facing that in your home, and you retrieve that your own firearm and shoot to kill, because you’re faced with several individuals who are armed with firearms, you’re well within your rights. HARRISON LOWMAN: So, and you’re talking about Canada here. So if I’m a Canadian lawful gun owner, and you know, my house is being broken into in three, three in the morning, and these people are also armed with guns. I have, you know, the ability. JOSEPH NEUBERGER: Full right to defend yourself, and if you kill them, look I mean, again, police may charge like they did in Milton, but I would be it would be hard pressed for a jury to render a conviction. We have cases with gang members defending shootings in public when they believe that the other individual has either is about to pull a firearm or has pulled a firearm on them, and they can be found not guilty because of self defence. They may be guilty of possession of illegal firearms, but at least the murder charge is defended on self defence. The same applies to a lawful gun owner who’s protecting themselves and their family from home invasion, where these people are carrying firearms. HARRISON LOWMAN: So Joseph, this runs counter somewhat to the narrative that’s come out of this story. And I know there’s still you know, details to be filled in, but the narrative is that there’s a deficit here are we are Canadians are lacking when it comes to the ability to defend their property, their families, when a criminal is breaking in at night and they want to defend themselves. How do you view you know from given your degrees, given your profession, here your experience, you know whether there is a deficit or isn’t? How do you consider this? JOSEPH NEUBERGER: Look, I think you know, we had our self defence laws revised a number of years ago under the Conservative government, and the case law is very clear. I think we have broad self defence rules in place and the proper legal test to deal with these types of situations. It it may be a situation where the police feel, because of the force used and the injury suffered by the intruder, that this was a case that called for an aggravated assault charge. It’s very hard to comment unless we know more about what happened in the altercation, but we do have robust self defence rules here in Canada. It’s not like the other thing I’ll mention is, you know, there’s no duty to retreat in Canada, so if somebody approaches in the home, you don’t have to go run and hide or exit the home, although in certain circumstances, I’m not saying that that wouldn’t be that if you’re able to remove yourself and your family from the home and call police without any type of altercation. That’s a far better course of action so that you don’t incur any risk of harm to yourself, but you do not have a duty to retreat. You do not have a duty to not engage in trying to protect yourself and your family. So these are fairly strict and good rules in place for self defence in Canada. I just think here there are a few cases we don’t deal with this often, because this doesn’t occur often where we have a homeowner who’s defending themselves, and it results in very serious injury to the intruder or death. We don’t have that, so that’s why I think we’re grappling with it, and the police may need more guidance, depending upon what facts come out in this case. HARRISON LOWMAN: Does it change Joseph, if you’re defending your family, if he had kids in the house, if there was a threat to their lives? Does it change if he’s a father, if he’s a husband? JOSEPH NEUBERGER: Yeah, so, it shouldn’t in law. So if you’re defending yourself, that’s good enough. You know, property, chattels can all be replaced. So if you can remove yourself from the circumstances, don’t worry about your your jewellery or your TV. Get out of there. But defending yourself is equally as appropriate. Of course, the optics if you have young children or vulnerable individuals in your home that’s a heightened degree of stress, that’s a heightened degree of fear you don’t want your loved ones being harmed, especially your children or elderly parents. And so the optics in those circumstances are certainly an accused favour, and I’m very much in favour for robust self defence rules, especially in home invasion situations. I just think we have to be careful not to go as far as the Castle doctrine the United States, because we shouldn’t just authorise any type of lethal force regardless of the threat posed. I mean, it’s the imminent nature of the force, what type of risk you’re facing at that time, the particulars of the individual who comes in. There’s all sorts of factors that come into play, and I don’t want a broad brush to deal with every single situation, especially in a case where somebody who comes into the home may not pose such a significant threat and they wind up dead. HARRISON LOWMAN: You predicted my next question, which was, yeah, where there’s potential room for improvement when it comes to self defence? And I think you just answered that. JOSEPH NEUBERGER: Yeah. I mean, I just, you know, there are circumstances where somebody may be in their lawful right, but then, because of, you know, other circumstances, they continue in the assault and the beating, and somebody winds up dead, particularly if you have a home intruder come in and they’re just, they’re committing a break and enter, but they don’t really have any weapons on them, and they’re beaten to death. And this is a hypothetical. I’m not at all suggesting this happened in this case, that this was what this person did. This is just a hypothetical. But if we, if we get to those circumstances, we pride ourselves as Canadians on a much more civil society, and I think we have to be very careful to protect against those situations, and that’s why I like the flexibility that we have in the law at present. HARRISON LOWMAN: Final few questions here, obviously, and we talked about this previously, as he often does, Premier Ford dipped his toes into this matter, and he came out yesterday and talked about how something’s broken with the justice system. You know how you should be able to, you know people aren’t able to protect their families. He said, if an intruder has a weapon, you should be able to use all resources necessary to protect your families. What did you make of his remarks as the premier? And then, I guess secondly, what can he do to change any of this? Does he have any powers at his disposal to to do anything here. Or do you think that was just a, you know, offhand remark at a press conference? JOSEPH NEUBERGER: I think our Premier is given to being rather impulsive in his comments and his responses are emotional. I think it’s an emotional topic. He certainly has been talking about crime. You know, quietly, statistics came out for the 2024, police statistics on crime. It has been going down, but he’s an emotional, responding individual, and I just, I wish there was a little bit more restraint, because every time he says something is broken, something is broken, it tells the public that we. A broken system. And trust me, look, I’m a criminal defence lawyer. I have my complaints about various aspects, but I have been a champion to say that our criminal justice system in Ontario and Canada is very good. It’s a beacon in the world, and we do not suffer problems like they do in the United States. And I don’t want to see us moving towards US-style, system. So it’s unfortunate. I understand his impulsive I understand that he wants to be on the side of the homeowner against a criminal who comes into a home, but it’s not helpful. I think what he should say is I am concerned about the homeowner being charged. We don’t know enough right now, but if this is an inappropriate overreach of police for charging certainly my office and the Solicitor General’s office will look into this. These are the type of measured comments I’d like to see from a leader, as opposed to saying something is broken. And I’m going to go a bit further, because he said this about the criminal justice system. And quite oddly, as we know, the provincial government can’t change federal criminal laws that that is the purview of the federal government. So that’s, that’s the Liberal government. It’s minority, but it’s, it’s the parliament who would put federal legislation through for criminal law, but it’s the Ontario government that appoints the Provincial Court judges who sit in the Ontario Court of Justice. The solicitor general is the one who’s in charge of policing in Ontario, so they have a very significant influence on police policies and on appointments of judges. And when he keeps saying that something must be broken, and the system’s broken, you know, his government actually has been making very good appointments to the bench. You know, a slew of appointments recently, of some crown attorneys and some defence lawyers have been excellent appointments. They will do an excellent job as judges in our system. And so I’ve given credit. And I say over and over that, I think the Ford government has made some very good decisions in that regard, I just wish he’d refrain from this type of hyperbole, because it does not help build confidence in our system and it attacks the rule of law. HARRISON LOWMAN: Joseph, can you and I agree, maybe not broken, but parts of it are broken. Can we leave it at that, that needs fixing? JOSEPH NEUBERGER: I don’t think parts of it are broken. I think there needs to be tweaking. I think, you know, certain things on bail needs need some attention. And I think that’s an application of education of JPs who are handling certain bail cases. I think we also need to take a look at how certain cases are prosecuted. Nothing’s perfect. We are never going to get close to perfect. That just won’t happen. So I will agree that there are frailties in the system and things that need to be done. I also think we need to invest in policing more. I will say this. I don’t think our, our our cities are, are have enough funds to invest in policing. I think much more needs to be done about the flow of firearms from the United States. That’s where the majority of these illegal weapons are coming from. So we need to boost up our Canadian border security services, our police services, our special project units. These are areas that we need heavy investment in, and we should not be pulling back on their funding. HARRISON LOWMAN: That is Joseph Neuberger. He’s a Toronto criminal defence lawyer. Thank you so much for joining us at Hub Hits today, we really appreciate it. JOSEPH NEUBERGER: My pleasure. Thank you for having me on. Take care. Harrison Lowman and ladies and gents, if you want more commentary and analysis on crime, economics, business, politics, etc, you can head to www.thehub.ca and why not become a paid member to get exclusive content. You can do that for a buck a week. We thank you for doing so. Thanks for joining us today. I’m Harrison Lowman, managing editor of the hub.

Go to article

00:00:00

00:00:00