4.2 The National Use of Force Model, Assessment & De-escalation
Key Takeaways
- The National Use of Force Model (NUFM) is a dynamic, continuous risk assessment framework centered on the Situation, assessing Subject Behaviour, Guard Perceptions and Tactical Considerations, and Guard Response Options.
- Subject behaviours are classified into five distinct categories: Cooperative, Passive Resistant, Active Resistant, Assaultive, and Grievous Bodily Harm or Death.
- Guard response options encompass Officer Presence, Communication, Physical Control (Soft vs. Hard), Intermediate Weapons (batons/handcuffs where certified and authorized under PSISA), and Lethal Force (which regular private security guards are never authorized to deploy).
- The NUFM is dynamic and non-linear; response options must instantly scale down (de-escalate) as subject compliance increases, and verbal communication must remain the continuous baseline across all encounters.
- Tactical disengagement, repositioning, and requesting police backup are legally and tactically valid response options whenever the threat exceeds guard safety or authorized capabilities.
The National Use of Force Model, Assessment & De-escalation
The National Use of Force Model (NUFM) was developed in 1999 by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) and has been adopted across Canadian law enforcement agencies and provincial private security training curricula. In Ontario, the Ministry of the Solicitor General incorporates the NUFM into mandatory security guard training to provide security personnel with a standardized, objective decision-making framework. The model assists security guards in assessing risks, choosing legally justifiable response options, and articulating their rationale in incident reports and court testimony.
The Continuous Assessment Process: Assess, Plan, Act, Reassess
The National Use of Force Model is not a rigid procedural checklist, nor is it a one-way staircase. Instead, it represents a continuous, circular assessment cycle that operates in real time throughout every encounter. This cycle consists of four interconnected cognitive phases:
- Assess: The security guard continuously perceives and gathers information about the situation, environment, subject behaviours, and available resources.
- Plan: Based on the assessment, the guard formulates a response strategy, considering tactical options, legal authorities, safety risks, and communication avenues.
- Act: The guard initiates the chosen response option, whether it is maintaining professional presence, issuing verbal directions, deploying soft control holds, or tactically disengaging.
- Reassess: The guard instantly evaluates the effect of their action. Has the subject complied? Has the resistance escalated or de-escalated? The guard immediately cycles back to the assessment phase, adjusting response options dynamically.
The Central Core: The Situation
At the literal center of the National Use of Force Model sits The Situation. The situation dictates all subsequent assessments and responses. When evaluating the situation, security personnel must process multiple environmental and physical variables:
- Environment: Physical surroundings, terrain, weather, lighting, presence of bystanders or crowds, confined spaces versus open plazas, proximity to traffic or hazardous machinery.
- Subject Multiplicity: Ratio of guards to subjects (e.g., one guard facing three aggressive individuals versus four guards securing one subject).
- Physical Proximity & Barriers: Distance between the guard and subject (the "reactionary gap", ideally minimum 2 to 3 metres), escape routes, availability of cover (protection from weapons) and concealment (protection from observation).
- Time and Urgency: Is there an immediate physical threat requiring instant intervention, or is there time to pause, negotiate, maintain observation, and summon police backup?
Subject Behaviours: The Five Levels of Resistance
The NUFM categorizes subject behaviour into five distinct, progressive levels based on the degree of resistance or threat presented:
1. Cooperative Behaviour
The subject willingly complies with verbal requests, instructions, and directions from the security guard. They exhibit relaxed body language, make appropriate eye contact, and demonstrate no physical or verbal resistance. For example, a visitor politely signs into a visitor logbook or leaves a restricted corridor upon request.
2. Passive Resistant Behaviour
The subject refuses to comply with lawful instructions through non-violent, non-threatening non-cooperation. They do not initiate physical attacks, swing fists, or run away, but use physical dead weight or immobility to thwart control. Classic examples include a trespasser sitting cross-legged on the floor refusing to move, peaceful demonstrators linking arms, or an individual going limp when asked to step out of a facility.
3. Active Resistant Behaviour
The subject physically resists the security guard's control efforts without actively attacking or striking the guard. Their resistance is directed toward preventing control, breaking grips, or fleeing. Examples include pulling their arms away when a guard attempts an escort hold, running toward an exit, wrestling to prevent handcuffs from being applied, or bracing their feet against a doorframe to avoid being guided out.
4. Assaultive Behaviour
The subject engages in direct physical attacks or exhibits unambiguous physical indicators of an imminent attack. Their actions threaten bodily injury to the guard, staff, or bystanders. Examples include punching, kicking, headbutting, biting, lunging forward with clenched fists, grappling around the guard's neck, or brandishing non-lethal blunt objects aggressively.
5. Grievous Bodily Harm or Death
The subject's actions cause, or give the guard reasonable grounds to believe will cause, severe, permanent, life-threatening bodily injury or death. Examples include attacking with an edged weapon (knife, box-cutter), wielding a firearm, slashing with broken glass, striking with a metal pipe or crowbar, or attempting to strangle a person into unconsciousness.
Guard Perceptions and Tactical Considerations
Surrounding the central assessment of the situation and subject behaviour are the internal cognitive filters that govern the guard's response:
Guard Perceptions
How a guard perceives a threat is shaped by objective physical realities and individual training. Factors include the guard's own physical capabilities relative to the subject (size, strength, fitness), specialized defensive tactics training, level of fatigue, perceived intent of the subject, and emotional composure under stress.
Tactical Considerations
Tactical considerations govern the practicality of different response options:
- Availability of Backup: Is the guard alone or supported by colleagues?
- Reactionary Gap: Maintaining sufficient physical distance (minimum 2 to 3 metres) to recognize and react to sudden aggressive movements.
- Disengagement Opportunities: Can the guard safely step back, secure an access door, and wait for emergency police response without exposing others to imminent danger?
- Equipment Availability: Does the guard have an authorized baton, handcuffs, or radio communication?
Guard Response Options: The Action Spectrum
The NUFM establishes five broad categories of response options available to security personnel:
1. Officer Presence
The mere visual appearance of a professional, uniformed security guard. A crisp, clean uniform, upright confident posture, visible security identification, and calm readiness convey authority and deter misconduct. In many commercial settings, professional presence alone achieves full compliance without a single word spoken.
2. Communication
Verbal direction, tactical communication, active listening, and conflict de-escalation represent the primary and most versatile tool in private security. Unlike police officers, private security guards resolve the vast majority of workplace conflicts through professional dialogue. Communication is not an isolated stage; it must be maintained continuously across all levels of the model, even during physical restraint.
3. Physical Control: Soft vs. Hard Techniques
When verbal communication fails to achieve compliance against resistant subjects, physical control becomes legally necessary:
- Soft Physical Control: Techniques designed to achieve control with a very low risk of injury. These include guiding holds, escort grips, joint locks (such as wristlocks or straight armbars), balance displacement techniques, and standard mechanical handcuffing. Soft techniques are appropriate for passive resistant and non-assaultive active resistant subjects.
- Hard Physical Control: Techniques intended to stop aggressive or assaultive behaviour with a moderate probability of injury. These include empty-hand distraction strikes (palm heel strikes, knee strikes to large muscle groups), takedowns to the ground, and defensive blocks against incoming strikes. Hard techniques are justified against assaultive subjects who pose an immediate physical threat.
4. Intermediate Weapons and PSISA Restrictions
Intermediate weapons are non-lethal impact devices designed to bridge the gap between physical control and lethal force. In Ontario, intermediate weapons in private security are strictly governed by the Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2005 (PSISA) and O. Reg. 366/07 (Equipment), which is short and highly testable — memorize what it actually says:
- Batons (Expandable or Straight) — O. Reg. 366/07, s. 2: an individual licensee may use a baton only if two conditions are both met: (1) the baton is issued to the guard by the licensed or registered business entity that employs them (a personally purchased baton is never lawful), and (2) the guard uses it for defensive purposes only. Section 2(2) adds a duty on the employer, not the guard: the licensed business entity must carry insurance covering the risks of its employees carrying batons. Note what the regulation does not say — it prescribes no ministry baton-certification course and no certificate-carrying rule. Baton training is an employer policy and civil-liability requirement, not a condition written into O. Reg. 366/07.
- Handcuffs — O. Reg. 366/07, s. 3: an individual licensee may use handcuffs only if the handcuffs are issued to the guard by the licensed or registered business entity that employs them. That single condition is the whole rule. Employers layer training and post-order authorization on top of it.
- Prohibited Restraints — O. Reg. 366/07, s. 4: a guard may never use cable ties or strip ties as restraints, in any circumstance. This is an absolute statutory prohibition and a frequent test item.
- Firearms — O. Reg. 366/07, s. 1: a guard may use a firearm only if all three conditions are met: (1) the guard is authorized to carry it under section 20 of the federal Firearms Act; (2) the employing licensed or registered business entity itself holds a Firearms Act licence permitting it to possess firearms; and (3) the firearm is issued to the guard by that business entity. In practice this covers armoured-car personnel protecting valuables, not general-duty guards.
- Prohibited Weapons: Regular Ontario security guards are strictly prohibited by law from carrying or deploying firearms, oleoresin capsicum (OC/pepper) spray, tear gas, or Conducted Energy Weapons (Tasers). Carrying unauthorized weapons is a federal criminal offence and causes immediate licence revocation.
5. Lethal Force Boundaries
Regular private security guards in Ontario have zero legal authorization to use or deploy lethal force. The only possible legal justification for force causing death or grievous bodily harm is universal self-defence under Criminal Code Section 34, where a guard faces an unavoidable, imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm to themselves or others, and no retreat or escape is possible.
Dynamic Application: Dispelling the "Ladder" Fallacy
One of the most persistent and dangerous misconceptions among security personnel is treating the National Use of Force Model as a rigid "ladder" or "staircase" where a guard must try every lower level before moving to a higher level. This is legally and tactically false:
- If an individual suddenly charges with an iron pipe (Grievous Bodily Harm), the guard is not required to try verbal communication or soft escort holds first; they may immediately deploy defensive blocks, hard control, disengage behind a locked barrier, or summon emergency police.
- The De-escalation Imperative: Crucially, the model operates in reverse just as rapidly. The moment an assaultive subject drops their weapon, surrenders, and raises their hands, the guard's response must immediately drop back to verbal direction and soft physical restraint. Continuing hard strikes or weapon strikes against a surrendering subject constitutes excessive force under Criminal Code Section 26.
Comprehensive Matrix: Subject Behaviour vs. Guard Response Options
The following matrix details the relationship between subject resistance levels and legally permissible security guard response options under Ontario law:
| Subject Resistance Level | Observable Physical Indicators | Permissible Guard Response Options | Strictly Prohibited Responses | Practical Security Scenario |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Cooperative | Relaxed posture, makes eye contact, verbal compliance, follows instructions promptly. | Officer Presence<br/>Communication (polite greeting, clear instructions). | Any physical force, unprovoked touching, verbal insults, profanity. | Patron presents photo ID at access gate; contractor signs into facility visitor log. |
| 2. Passive Resistant | Going limp, sitting on floor, linking arms, dead weight, refusing verbal direction without physical violence. | Communication (de-escalation, explaining consequences).<br/>Soft Physical Control (guiding techniques, escort holds). | Hard empty-hand strikes, punches, kicks, baton strikes, chokeholds. | Peaceful protestor sits in commercial lobby refusing to stand; trespassing patron refuses to walk toward exit. |
| 3. Active Resistant | Pulling arms away, running toward exits, wrestling to prevent handcuffing, bracing feet against walls. | Communication (firm verbal commands).<br/>Soft Physical Control (joint locks, balance displacement, ground control). | Striking head/neck, drawing baton to inflict punishment, chokeholds. | Shoplifter pulls arm away from guard's escort grip and attempts to break through store exit doors. |
| 4. Assaultive | Throwing punches, kicking, headbutting, biting, lunging aggressively with clenched fists, grappling. | Hard Physical Control (palm strikes, knee strikes, takedowns).<br/>Intermediate Weapons (defensive baton blocks/strikes, if certified). | Punitive strikes after suspect is subdued, choking, kneeling on neck. | Intoxicated patron swings a closed fist at the guard's face in an entertainment venue concourse. |
| 5. Grievous Bodily Harm or Death | Slashing with knives, aiming firearms, swinging crowbars/pipes at head, strangulation, severe beating. | Tactical Disengagement (create distance, retreat behind locked doors).<br/>Call 911 Police Immediately.<br/>Emergency self-defence under s. 34 if cornered. | Standing ground unarmed to fight armed attackers; regular security has NO lethal weapons. | Intruder produces an 8-inch hunting knife and charges at security inside an underground parking garage. |
During an environmental demonstration in the atrium of a commercial office tower, a demonstrator sits cross-legged on the floor, links arms with another participant, and refuses to leave after receiving a formal verbal trespass warning from security. The demonstrator does not strike, kick, swear, or make threatening gestures toward security personnel. Under the National Use of Force Model, how is this demonstrator's behaviour classified, and what is the appropriate initial response?
A loss prevention security guard attempts to arrest an active shoplifter outside a retail store. The shoplifter suddenly turns assaultive, swinging a closed fist at the guard's head. The guard deflects the blow with a defensive forearm block and shoves the suspect back. Immediately upon being pushed back, the suspect suddenly raises both hands high in the air, steps backward, and shouts: 'I quit! I give up! Don't hit me!' Under the National Use of Force Model, what is the security guard's immediate legal and operational obligation at this exact moment?
Under the Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2005 (PSISA) and Ontario Regulation 366/07 (Staffing and Equipment), what specific statutory conditions must be satisfied before a licensed security guard may carry an expandable metal baton on duty?