6.1 Use of Force — Justification & Limits
Key Takeaways
- A BC security guard is not a peace officer — force authority comes from Criminal Code ss.34 (self-defence) and s.35 (defence of property), not from the Security Services Act.
- Force must be reasonable and necessary, no more than is necessary, and not intended to cause grievous bodily harm or death.
- Force used merely to prevent escape or enforce a detention is generally NOT appropriate absent a separate s.34/35 justification — observe, record, and call police instead.
- Handcuffs require Registrar authorization and current Advanced Security Training (AST), renewed every 3 years; even then, they must be justified under ss.34/35.
- A use-of-force report is mandatory as a licence condition under Security Programs Division policy 3.7.2.1 whenever any force is used; the policy sets no deadline, but employer policy and evidentiary weight both point to writing it before the shift ends.
Use of Force — Justification & Limits
A security guard's authority to use force is narrow, conditional, and never the first option. In BC, a guard's powers come from the same Criminal Code provisions available to any citizen — not from the Security Services Act.
A security guard in British Columbia is not a peace officer. You have no special statutory power to detain, search, or compel compliance. Your authority to use force flows from the Criminal Code (RSC 1985, c. C-46) and applies only in two situations: self-defence (s.34) and defence of property (s.35). The BST exam tests whether you can distinguish what a guard may legally do from what a peace officer may do, and whether you can pick the least-force response the moment requires.
Why This Matters on the Exam and on Shift
Real incidents — a shoplifter pulling away, an intoxicated patron shoving, a trespasser refusing to leave — force snap judgements that can end your career, your liberty, or someone's life. Getting force wrong in either direction carries liability: too much becomes assault; too little at the wrong moment can mean you or a bystander is hurt. The exam, and the law, asks: was the force reasonable and necessary in the circumstances?
The Two Legal Foundations: ss.34 and 35
Criminal Code s.34 (defence of person) permits force when you reasonably believe force is being used against you or another person, or that a threat of force exists, and you act for the purpose of defending yourself or that other person. The force must be reasonable and necessary in the circumstances.
Criminal Code s.35 (defence of property) permits force to prevent someone from entering property you are in peaceable possession of, or to remove someone who is on the property without lawful authority — again, only reasonable and necessary force.
Two limits cut across both provisions:
- The force must not be intended to cause grievous bodily harm or death and must be no more than is necessary to accomplish the defensive purpose.
- The act must be proportionate — a response to a threat, not a punishment for behaviour.
The Minimum Force Principle
Minimum force does not mean the smallest force in hindsight — it means the least force that a reasonable person would judge necessary to meet the threat as it appears at the time. Relevant factors include:
- Severity of the threat — verbal hostility vs. physical attack vs. weapon
- Immediacy — is the harm happening now or speculative?
- Disparity — size, age, number of subjects, your own capacity
- Subject's behaviour — cooperative, resistant, assaultive, armed
- De-escalation potential — is verbal control still viable?
A guard who uses more force than necessary is legally in the same position as a person who started the fight — the justification falls away.
Force to Prevent Escape Is Generally NOT Justified
This is the single most tested and most violated rule. A suspect runs. The guard tackles. Tackling a fleeing shoplifter who poses no threat is not justified by s.34 or s.35 — it is an assault. Force used merely to prevent escape or to enforce a detention is appropriate only when a separate justification (self-defence or defence of property) exists on the facts. The lawful path when a non-violent suspect flees is to observe, record description and direction of travel, and call police.
This is also why a citizen's arrest under Criminal Code s.494 does not, by itself, authorize force — s.494 lets you arrest, but any force used during that arrest must still be justified under ss.34/35.
The Use-of-Force Continuum
The continuum is a decision ladder, not a checklist. You enter at the level the situation requires and step down the moment the threat drops. BC security guards rarely carry weapons; most work occurs in the first two levels.
Reasonable vs Excessive Force
| Factor | Reasonable (justified) | Excessive (assault) |
|---|---|---|
| Trigger | Subject is assaultive or a threat to person/property | Subject is fleeing, non-compliant but not assaultive |
| Level used | Lowest level that controls the threat | Punch/tackle when an escort would suffice |
| Duration | Stops when the threat ends | Continues after subject is controlled |
| Intent | Defensive — end the threat | Punitive — "teach a lesson" |
| Outcome basis | Judged at the time, on known facts | Judged with hindsight bias |
A key pattern on the exam: a question describes a fleeing shoplifter who is grabbed, falls, and is injured. The correct answer is almost always that the guard's force was excessive because the only justification offered (escape) is not one of the ss.34/35 justifications.
Handcuffs and Restraining Devices
Handcuffs are a use of force. In BC, applying handcuffs requires Registrar authorization under the Security Services Act and completion of Advanced Security Training (AST), which must be renewed every 3 years. A guard without AST authorization who applies handcuffs commits an assault regardless of the suspect's behaviour — the authorization governs the tool, not the situation. Even with authorization, handcuffs must be justified under ss.34/35 like any other force.
De-escalation as the First and Ongoing Option
De-escalation is not a step before force — it runs alongside every level of the continuum. Keep talking, maintain distance, position for cover, and reassess continuously. If force becomes necessary, return to verbal control the moment it is safe to do so. A return to verbal commands after physical control is a hallmark of a reasonable response.
Documenting Force
A use-of-force report is mandatory as a registrar-imposed licence condition under Security Programs Division policy 3.7.2.1, and it applies whether or not anyone was injured or complained. The policy sets no deadline, but write it before the shift ends anyway — a report written days later carries far less weight. Use factual language: what the subject did, what you did, what you said, the level of force used, and the outcome. Documentation is your primary protection against later criminal, civil, and disciplinary claims.
Key Takeaways
- Authority for force comes from Criminal Code ss.34 and 35 only — not from your licence.
- Minimum force is judged at the time, not in hindsight.
- Force to prevent escape alone is not justified — observe, record, call police.
- Handcuffs require AST and Registrar authorization.
- Document every use of force — policy 3.7.2.1 requires the report regardless of injury; write it before the shift ends.
A patron at a bar you are guarding shoves you with both hands and moves toward you again. Under what Criminal Code provision may you use force to defend yourself?
A shoplifter who has taken a jacket is walking calmly out the door. You have no indication of violence. What is your lawful option regarding force?
You are a licensed BC security guard. Under what condition may you lawfully apply handcuffs to a subject?