Use of Force (ss. 25, 26, 27)

Use of Force — Criminal Code ss. 25, 26, 27

Quick Answer: Force by a security guard is justified only when it is necessary, proportionate, and used for a lawful purpose (preventing an offence or executing a lawful arrest). Section 25 supplies the justification, section 26 makes excessive force a criminal offence, and section 27 lets anyone use reasonably necessary force to prevent a serious offence that could not be stopped any other way.

The Three Sections Side by Side

---

s. 25 — Justification for Lawful Force

Section 25 is the umbrella justification. Force is justified when it is used:

• to prevent an offence, or
• to execute a lawful arrest.

The force must be no more than is necessary. For a security guard, s. 25 applies when the guard is effecting a lawful citizen's arrest under s. 494 — the arrest is lawful, so reasonable force to complete it is justified.

Key idea: justification under s. 25 is a defence. The Crown must prove the force was unjustified, but the guard must be able to articulate why the force used was the minimum needed in the circumstances.

s. 26 — Excessive Force Is Itself an Offence

Section 26 closes the loop, and it applies to every one who is authorized by law to use force — not only peace officers. Its exact words are that such a person "is criminally responsible for any excess thereof according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess." A security guard making a lawful citizen's arrest is authorized by law to use force (s. 494(4) says so), and is therefore squarely inside s. 26. Exceeding the necessary force converts a justified act into a criminal one — typically assault, assault causing bodily harm, or aggravated assault.

For security guards the practical consequences are:

• Criminal charges — assault, assault causing bodily harm, or aggravated assault depending on the injury.
• Civil liability — damages to the injured person, potentially punitive damages.
• Loss of licence / employment — the Security Services and Investigators Regulation requires an individual licensee to report criminal charges to the Registrar.

The line is necessity, not intensity: a hard takedown that is the minimum way to subdue a violent shoplifter may be justified; a punch after the suspect is controlled is excessive.

s. 27 — Preventing Crime as a Private Person

Section 27 lets everyone (including a guard) use as much force as is reasonably necessary to prevent the commission of an offence. The statutory test has two cumulative parts: the offence must be one for which a person could be arrested without warrant, and it must be one that would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or property of anyone. Section 27(b) extends the same justification to preventing something the person believes on reasonable grounds would be such an offence.

• It is preventive, not arrest-focused — it kicks in before the offence completes.
• Both statutory limbs must be met: arrestable without warrant and likely to cause immediate and serious injury. Petty damage that harms nobody does not qualify.
• The force must still be only as much as is reasonably necessary — if a verbal direction would work, force is not reasonably necessary.

Scenario: A guard sees a person about to smash a storefront window with a crowbar. A loud verbal command fails. The guard grabs the person's arm to stop the swing. That is s. 27 prevention force — reasonably necessary, no lesser means, serious offence (mischief over $5,000 or break-and-enter intent).

The Minimum-Necessary-Force Principle

All three sections converge on one rule: use the least force that will achieve the lawful objective. In practice, the use-of-force continuum runs:

1. Verbal direction first — tell the person to stop, to leave, or to submit to arrest.
2. Soft empty-hand control — guide, escort, or hold, if compliance fails.
3. Hard empty-hand control — takedown or strike, only if needed to overcome resistance or prevent harm.
4. Weapons / deadly force — only when facing a threat of death or grievous bodily harm, and only to the extent needed to stop that threat.

Force must also be proportionate to the threat. A shoplifter fleeing with a $20 item does not justify a tackle into a concrete wall that causes serious injury.

When Force Is NOT Justified

• Retaliation — striking a suspect who is already controlled and no longer resisting.
• Punishment — guards do not punish; courts do.
• Convenience — using force to move a compliant person faster than they are walking.
• Suspicion alone — force requires a lawful basis (arrest, prevention, or defence).

Documenting Use of Force

Every use-of-force incident should be documented immediately: subject behaviour, officer actions, force used and why lesser force was inadequate, injuries, witnesses, and the time police took custody. Poor documentation turns a justified incident into a civil nightmare.