Supreme Court will rule today on the appeal of Peter Khill — a Hamilton-area man who shot and killed another man breaking into his truck, which was parked in the driveway of Khill’s rural home — the top court will rule on the question of when the defence of self-defence is reasonable, and what role the conduct of the accused plays. The Ontario Court of Appeal found the trial judge had erred in giving instructions to the jury which acquitted Khill of second-degree murder on the claim of self-defence in the shooting. The intruder, who died from two shotgun wounds, was Jonathan Styres, an Indigenous man from the nearby Six Nations reserve. The link here sends you to a 2020 story in which CP reporter Colin Perkel provides the backstory.
(a) they either believe on reasonable grounds that they are in peaceable possession of property or are acting under the authority of, or lawfully assisting, a person whom they believe on reasonable grounds is in peaceable possession of property;
(b) they believe on reasonable grounds that another person
(i) is about to enter, is entering or has entered the property without being entitled by law to do so,
(ii) is about to take the property, is doing so or has just done so, or
(iii) is about to damage or destroy the property, or make it inoperative, or is doing so;
(c) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of
(i) preventing the other person from entering the property, or removing that person from the property, or
(ii) preventing the other person from taking, damaging or destroying the property or from making it inoperative, or retaking the property from that person; and
(d) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.