Unlike the U.S. castle doctrine, Canadian law does not presume that a homeowner can automatically use force when an intruder enters. Instead, the Criminal Code (ss. 34–35) requires that several conditions be met.
1. Assess the Situation
The homeowner must first believe, on reasonable grounds, that they or another person are being threatened with force, or that property is at risk of being damaged or stolen. Mere trespass, without threat, does not usually justify force.
2. Attempt to Avoid Violence (If Possible)
While Canada does not impose a strict “duty to retreat,” courts expect homeowners to consider non-violent options first:
- Calling police or security
- Issuing a verbal warning (e.g., “Get out of my house”)
- Securing themselves and others in a safe area if escape is possible
If a homeowner rushes to violence without trying other measures, the use of force may later be found unreasonable.
3. Use Only the Force Necessary
If force becomes unavoidable, the law requires it to be reasonable and proportionate to the threat.
- Minimal force (like physically ejecting a trespasser) is permitted to protect property.
- Escalating to weapons or deadly force is only justified if the intruder poses an imminent threat to life or serious bodily harm.
4. Deadly Force = Last Resort
Lethal force may only be used if the homeowner reasonably believes it is the only way to stop a threat of death or grievous bodily harm. Protecting property alone (like a vehicle, electronics, or cash) never justifies deadly force under Canadian law.
Judicial Considerations
When courts evaluate a homeowner’s actions, they look at factors such as:
- Immediacy of the threat — Was the intruder armed? Advancing?
- Options available — Could the homeowner retreat or call for help?
- Proportionality — Was the force used excessive compared to the threat?
- Role of the homeowner — Did they instigate or escalate the conflict?
These checks mean Canadian law emphasizes restraint and necessity, not a blanket right to defend property at all costs.
Canadian Case Examples
Canadian courts have already faced difficult decisions in homeowner defence cases. Here are two examples that illustrate the limits of the law:
Example 1 – Homeowner Found Not Guilty
In R. v. Khill, 2021 SCC 37, a Hamilton-area homeowner was charged with second-degree murder after fatally shooting an intruder who was trying to break into his truck at night. The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately ordered a new trial but emphasized that self-defence is highly context-dependent: the jury must consider what the accused reasonably perceived at the time. While Khill was not outright acquitted at the SCC level, the case reflects how a homeowner can successfully argue they acted in defence of themselves and their property when they reasonably feared for their safety.
Example 2 – Homeowner Found Guilty
In R. v. Deegan, 2007 ONCA 81, an Ontario man shot and killed an unarmed intruder who had broken into his home. The intruder posed no immediate lethal threat, and the court found the homeowner’s response to be disproportionate. Deegan was convicted of manslaughter, showing that Canadian courts draw a firm line: force may be used to defend property, but not deadly force unless there is a clear threat to life.
Conclusion
Canadian law makes it clear: defending your home is not the same as having an automatic right to use force. Before acting, homeowners must assess the situation, consider non-violent alternatives, and ensure that any force used is both necessary and proportionate. Deadly force remains an absolute last resort, available only when life or serious safety is immediately at risk.
Cases like Khill and Deegan highlight the fine line Canadian courts draw between justifiable self-defence and criminal liability. For property owners, the lesson is simple: while your home may feel like your castle, the law requires restraint and responsibility before force can be used.
At Rabideau Law, we help homeowners, landlords, and investors understand not only their real estate rights, but also how those rights interact with broader Canadian laws. If you have questions about protecting your property and your interests, our team is here to guide you.
Tarion Warranty coverage after you close
/in Real Estate /by Geoff RabideauThis is an overview of warranty coverage after closing for Freehold, Contract and Condo Units
A note for Common Elements coverage
For most condominiums, the common elements have the below warranty coverage.
The condominium corporation is entitled to submit warranty claims for defects in work or materials in the common elements. There is no warranty coverage for the common elements of either a common elements condominium or vacant land condominium. Common elements warranty coverage begins on the date the condominium corporation is registered.
One-Year Warranty
Now that the purchaser has taken possession of their newly constructed freehold home or condominium unit, they are eligible for year one warranty coverage. This coverage begins on the date of possession and lasts one year from that date and includes items such as defects in work and material and unauthorized substitutions. See below for what the year one warranty covers.
Coverage for Freehold, Contract & Condo Units
Two-Year Warranty
The new home warranty continues to provide coverage into year two and include items such as water penetration, heating and electrical. This coverage begins on the home’s date of possession even if the home is sold. See below for what the year two warranty covers.
What is covered for Freehold, Contract & Condo Units
Seven-Year Major Structural Defect Warranty
The seven-year warranty covers major structural defects (MSD) and begins on the date that the purchaser takes possession of the home and ends on the seventh anniversary of that date.
A major structural defect is a defect in work or materials that:
What is covered
The seven year MSD warranty includes significant damage due to:
What is not covered
The seven-year MSD Warranty specifically excludes the following:
Source: https://www.tarion.com/builders-guide-coverage-homes
Transfer of Real Estate Between Trustees in Ontario
/in Real Estate /by Geoff RabideauWhen real estate is held in trust, there may come a time when the trustee needs to be changed—due to resignation, incapacity, death, or a planned transition. In Ontario, transferring real property from one trustee to another involves specific legal procedures to ensure title remains properly held in trust and the Land Titles records stay accurate.
When Does a Trustee Transfer Occur?
Trustee-to-trustee real estate transfers typically arise in the following situations:
Regardless of the reason, the key principle is that the land must continue to be held in trust—just by a new legal owner.
What’s Required for the Transfer?
The process for transferring Ontario real estate from one trustee to another depends on how title was registered.
If the property is registered under the Land Titles system, the following are usually required:
Practical Considerations
How Rabideau Law Can Help
At Rabideau Law, we regularly assist clients with real estate held in trust, including seamless trustee transitions. Whether it’s part of estate planning, corporate restructuring, or ongoing trust administration, our real estate and trust law experience ensures your transfer is completed efficiently, correctly, and with the necessary legal protections.
Example:
If John Smith, trustee of the “Smith Family Trust,” resigns and Jane Doe is appointed in his place, we prepare and register a Transfer from “John Smith, in trust” to “Jane Doe, in trust,” along with supporting documents confirming the change in trusteeship.
Thinking of transferring property between trustees?
Contact Rabideau Law to make sure your trust assets are properly protected and registered.
Can Ontario Seniors Claim Property Taxes Paid on a Life Lease?
/in Uncategorized /by Geoff RabideauAt Rabideau Law, we regularly receive questions from seniors and their families about the tax treatment of life leases in Ontario. One common question is:
“If I’m a senior living in a life lease, can I claim the property taxes I pay?”
The short answer:
✅ Yes — but not as a deduction on your tax return.
Instead, Ontario offers two specific tax relief programs that allow eligible seniors to benefit from the property taxes paid on their life lease residence.
Understanding Life Leases
A life lease is a unique form of residential occupancy where an individual pre-pays for the right to occupy a unit for life (or for a set term), but without actually owning the real estate. While you may not hold title, many life lease agreements include a responsibility to pay a portion of the property taxes for the development.
Thankfully, Ontario recognizes this when determining eligibility for certain tax relief programs.
1. Ontario Senior Homeowners’ Property Tax Grant (OSHPTG)
The OSHPTG is designed to provide direct financial support to seniors who pay property taxes on their principal residence.
Eligibility Criteria:
How Much Can You Receive?
How to Apply:
2. Ontario Energy and Property Tax Credit (OEPTC)
The OEPTC provides additional relief for both energy costs and property taxes paid, including those paid by life lease residents.
Eligibility:
Credit Amounts:
Application:
Important Note: This Is Not a Deduction
Neither the OSHPTG nor the OEPTC are “tax deductions” that reduce your taxable income. Instead, they are non-taxable credits and grants paid directly to you after filing your return.
You cannot claim property taxes paid on a life lease as an expense or deduction like you might for business or rental purposes. These are personal credits for principal residence occupancy only.
How Rabideau Law Can Help
Navigating life leases and understanding eligibility for various government programs can be complex. At Rabideau Law, we regularly assist seniors, retirees, and families with:
If you or a loved one is considering a life lease or seeking advice on Ontario’s property tax credits, contact Rabideau Law today for professional, clear, and personalized legal guidance.
519-957-1001
rabideaulaw.ca
Mortgage Defaults and Enforcement in Ontario: What You Need to Know About Power of Sale, Foreclosure, and Credit Impact
/in Blog, Real Estate /by Geoff RabideauThe Early Signs: Late or Skipped Payments
Missing a mortgage payment doesn’t automatically trigger enforcement, but it does start a chain of potential consequences:
Impact on Credit: The first missed payment can drop a borrower’s credit score by 80–100 points. These notations (e.g., M2 or R2) remain on a borrower’s credit report for six years.
Default & Demand
When defaults continue, lenders will issue a Demand Letter, often citing additional defaults such as:
Power of Sale vs. Foreclosure: What’s the Difference?
Power of Sale: Lender sells the property, Former owner may get surplus proceeds, Typical duration: 6 months, Preferred where equity exists.
Foreclosure: Lender takes title to the property, Owner loses all equity, Can take over a year, Courts reluctant unless no equity.
Most lenders opt for Power of Sale, as it’s quicker and allows the borrower a chance to redeem the mortgage.
Step-by-Step: The Power of Sale Process
Credit Consequences of Enforcement
A court judgment will impact the borrower’s credit for:
If a lender suffers a shortfall after the sale, they may pursue deficiency enforcement against other borrower assets (e.g., bank accounts).
Distributing Sale Proceeds
Funds are applied in this order:
1. Property tax and condo arrears
2. Sale and legal costs
3. Outstanding mortgage balance
4. Other creditors
5. Borrower (if anything remains)
Don’t forget about super priorities like HST and source deductions—they can trump secured creditors.
Buying Under Power of Sale: Know the Risks
Buyers often assume these sales are “bargain deals”—they aren’t.
Liens & Tenancies: What Buyers and Brokers Must Know
Commercial Tenancies: A registered lease may bind the mortgagee. If not registered, the mortgagee usually has priority.
Borrower Redemption: It’s Not Over Until Closing
Even if an Agreement of Purchase and Sale is signed, borrowers retain a right to redeem the mortgage until the day before closing, per the Hornstein v. Gardena Properties Inc. ruling. Lenders typically include clauses allowing them to cancel the sale if the borrower pays out.
Final Note: Fixed-Fee Enforcement Matters
At Rabideau Law, we’ve handled thousands of real estate closings and enforcement matters. We offer fixed-fee pricing, evening/weekend signings, and proactive support for brokers, lenders, and borrowers. Unlike most firms, we don’t charge hidden disbursements—just transparent, reliable service.
Have Questions About Enforcement?
Whether you’re a borrower under pressure, a broker trying to salvage a deal, or a lender facing default, our experienced team is here to help.
Visit: www.rabideaulaw.ca
Contact: info@rabideaulaw.ca
Call: 519-957-1001
Mutual Fund Trusts: A Powerful Tool for Tax-Efficient Investing in Canada
/in Corporate /by Geoff RabideauPrivate equity investors and fund managers alike are increasingly turning to Mutual Fund Trusts (MFTs) as part of their investment structuring strategy — and for good reason. These trusts offer a unique blend of flexibility, tax efficiency, and investor appeal, making them an ideal tool to pool capital while minimizing tax drag.
What Is a Mutual Fund Trust?
A Mutual Fund Trust is a flow-through investment vehicle recognized under the Income Tax Act (Canada). Unlike a corporation, an MFT does not pay income tax at the trust level if it distributes all of its income to unitholders annually. Instead, the tax burden flows through to the individual investors, enabling deferral or efficient treatment of gains depending on their own tax profile.
Why Use an MFT in Private Equity?
Typical Use Cases
Regulatory Considerations
To qualify as a Mutual Fund Trust under the ITA, certain conditions must be met:
At Rabideau Law, we regularly advise clients on how to structure their investment vehicles using MFTs, whether as standalone products or paired with Limited Partnerships for added flexibility.
Want to set up a Mutual Fund Trust or learn how it can fit within your investment structure?
Contact Rabideau Law to get started with a custom legal strategy that meets your fundraising goals while staying tax-smart.
What a Homeowner Must Do Before Using Force in Canada
/in Blog, Real Estate, Uncategorized /by Geoff RabideauUnlike the U.S. castle doctrine, Canadian law does not presume that a homeowner can automatically use force when an intruder enters. Instead, the Criminal Code (ss. 34–35) requires that several conditions be met.
1. Assess the Situation
The homeowner must first believe, on reasonable grounds, that they or another person are being threatened with force, or that property is at risk of being damaged or stolen. Mere trespass, without threat, does not usually justify force.
2. Attempt to Avoid Violence (If Possible)
While Canada does not impose a strict “duty to retreat,” courts expect homeowners to consider non-violent options first:
If a homeowner rushes to violence without trying other measures, the use of force may later be found unreasonable.
3. Use Only the Force Necessary
If force becomes unavoidable, the law requires it to be reasonable and proportionate to the threat.
4. Deadly Force = Last Resort
Lethal force may only be used if the homeowner reasonably believes it is the only way to stop a threat of death or grievous bodily harm. Protecting property alone (like a vehicle, electronics, or cash) never justifies deadly force under Canadian law.
Judicial Considerations
When courts evaluate a homeowner’s actions, they look at factors such as:
These checks mean Canadian law emphasizes restraint and necessity, not a blanket right to defend property at all costs.
Canadian Case Examples
Canadian courts have already faced difficult decisions in homeowner defence cases. Here are two examples that illustrate the limits of the law:
Example 1 – Homeowner Found Not Guilty
In R. v. Khill, 2021 SCC 37, a Hamilton-area homeowner was charged with second-degree murder after fatally shooting an intruder who was trying to break into his truck at night. The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately ordered a new trial but emphasized that self-defence is highly context-dependent: the jury must consider what the accused reasonably perceived at the time. While Khill was not outright acquitted at the SCC level, the case reflects how a homeowner can successfully argue they acted in defence of themselves and their property when they reasonably feared for their safety.
Example 2 – Homeowner Found Guilty
In R. v. Deegan, 2007 ONCA 81, an Ontario man shot and killed an unarmed intruder who had broken into his home. The intruder posed no immediate lethal threat, and the court found the homeowner’s response to be disproportionate. Deegan was convicted of manslaughter, showing that Canadian courts draw a firm line: force may be used to defend property, but not deadly force unless there is a clear threat to life.
Conclusion
Canadian law makes it clear: defending your home is not the same as having an automatic right to use force. Before acting, homeowners must assess the situation, consider non-violent alternatives, and ensure that any force used is both necessary and proportionate. Deadly force remains an absolute last resort, available only when life or serious safety is immediately at risk.
Cases like Khill and Deegan highlight the fine line Canadian courts draw between justifiable self-defence and criminal liability. For property owners, the lesson is simple: while your home may feel like your castle, the law requires restraint and responsibility before force can be used.
At Rabideau Law, we help homeowners, landlords, and investors understand not only their real estate rights, but also how those rights interact with broader Canadian laws. If you have questions about protecting your property and your interests, our team is here to guide you.
The “Stand on Guard Doctrine”: Could Canada Adopt a Castle Doctrine for Real Estate?
/in Blog, News, Real Estate, Wills & Estates /by Geoff RabideauAt Rabideau Law, we spend much of our time helping clients secure and protect their real estate. For many Canadians, their home is their most important asset—financially and emotionally. But when it comes to defending that property from intruders, Canadian law takes a very different approach than the United States.
In the U.S., most states have adopted the castle doctrine, which presumes that a homeowner is justified in using force, even deadly force, against an unlawful intruder. Canada does not have such a law. But what if Canada introduced its own version, a “Stand on Guard Doctrine”? What would need to change, and how might it affect real estate ownership?
How Canadian Law Currently Treats Defence of Property
Under the Criminal Code of Canada (s.35), a person may use reasonable force to prevent someone from entering or trespassing on their property. However:
From a real estate law perspective, this means that property rights are not absolute. Ownership gives you the right to exclude others, but not to use unlimited force to do so.
For more information on what a homeowner must do before using force in Canada check out this blog.
What a “Stand on Guard Doctrine” Would Look Like
If Canada adopted a Stand on Guard Doctrine, the legal landscape for real estate owners would change significantly. Such a doctrine would:
This would give homeowners stronger legal tools to defend not just their families, but their real estate investment itself.
The Laws That Would Need to Change
For Canada to adopt a Stand on Guard Doctrine, Parliament would need to amend the Criminal Code:
Create a statutory presumption that force—including deadly force—is justified against intruders inside a dwelling.
Clarify that proportionality does not apply in the same way when a homeowner is defending their residence.
Enact rules preventing trespassers or their families from suing property owners in civil court for injuries sustained during an unlawful entry.
Decide whether the doctrine would apply only to private dwellings, or also to cottages, farmland, rental properties, or even commercial real estate.
Real Estate Implications
For homeowners and investors, a Stand on Guard Doctrine would:
In other words, it wouldn’t just be a criminal law change—it would ripple across Canada’s real estate system
Conclusion
Canada does not currently have a castle doctrine. Any Canadian equivalent, the Stand on Guard Doctrine, would require rewriting our self-defence and property-defence laws. For now, Canadians can defend their homes, but only within the framework of reasonable, proportional force.
As real estate lawyers, we often remind clients that owning property in Canada means balancing strong property rights with equally strong legal limits. Until Parliament changes the law, Canadians should remember that while their home may feel like a castle, the law does not yet treat it that way.
Why the LP/GP Structure Is the Gold Standard in Private Equity
/in Corporate /by Geoff RabideauWhen it comes to launching a private investment fund, one structure stands out: the Limited Partnership (LP) with a General Partner (GP). It’s flexible, investor-friendly, and — when done right — highly tax efficient.
At Rabideau Law, we help clients build these structures from the ground up to raise capital, protect the general partner, and stay compliant with Canadian tax and securities law.
What Is an LP/GP Structure?
A Limited Partnership consists of two types of parties:
Their liability is limited to their investment.
The GP is often set up as a corporation to shield personal liability — something we strongly recommend and assist with at Rabideau Law.
How It Works (Simplified Flow):
This setup allows for:
Why Investors Prefer It
Why the GP Matters
The GP plays a critical legal and operational role. It must:
Rabideau Law regularly drafts LP Agreements that reflect your deal terms while ensuring the GP is protected.
Common Use Cases for LP/GP Structures
Ready to Start? We’re Your Legal Partner.
Whether you’re launching your first fund or expanding an existing one, Rabideau Law provides:
Book your strategy call today. Build it right, from the ground up.
What Is Private Equity, and Why Is It Booming in Canada?
/in Corporate /by Geoff RabideauPrivate equity isn’t just a buzzword thrown around on Bay Street — it’s a powerful investment model that’s reshaping how Canadians build wealth, fund businesses, and diversify portfolios.
At Rabideau Law, we help clients cut through the complexity and launch investment structures designed for long-term success. Whether you’re an entrepreneur raising capital or an investor seeking returns beyond the stock market, understanding private equity is the first step.
What Is Private Equity?
Private equity refers to capital investments made directly into private companies — companies that are not publicly traded on a stock exchange. Investors provide funds in exchange for ownership, often through structured vehicles like limited partnerships (LPs) or mutual fund trusts (MFTs).
These investments are typically:
Why Is Private Equity Booming in Canada?
1. Low Interest Rates & Market Volatility
Traditional investments (like bonds or index funds) haven’t been yielding high returns. Private equity offers a compelling alternative — one where investors have more control and upside.
2. Tax-Efficient Structures
Canadian law supports tax-efficient entities like LPs and MFTs. Investors can defer taxes or reduce exposure through customized structures — something we regularly advise on at Rabideau Law.
3. Innovation & Startups
Canada’s startup ecosystem is thriving. From tech to real estate, private equity is fueling the next generation of growth.
4. Institutional Momentum
Pension funds, family offices, and HNWIs are allocating more to private equity than ever before. This trend is trickling down to emerging fund managers and experienced entrepreneurs alike.
How Can You Participate?
To get involved, you need more than capital — you need the right legal structure to protect your interests, attract investors, and stay compliant with tax and securities laws.
The most popular structure? The LP/GP model — which we’ll explore in detail in our next blog.
How Rabideau Law Can Help
We’ve helped clients across Canada structure:
Let us help you build the foundation — from setting up the GP to drafting your Limited Partnership Agreement to registering your Mutual Fund Trust with CRA.
Book a consultation today. Let’s turn your vision into a fund.
Can You Buy a Home in Ontario After Separation But Before Divorce Is Finalized?
/in Blog, Family Law, Real Estate /by Geoff RabideauSeparation marks a major transition, not just emotionally, but also financially and legally. One of the most common questions we receive is whether someone can buy a new home in Ontario after separation but before a divorce is finalized, especially when no separation agreement has been signed.
The short answer is yes. Yes, you can legally buy a home after separation. But the long answer is that you need to proceed with caution. Without proper planning, you could face complications with mortgage approval, property division, or even tax exposure down the road.
Can You Buy a Home Without a Separation Agreement?
Under Ontario law, there’s no legal restriction preventing someone from purchasing a new home after separation, even if the divorce is not yet finalized or a separation agreement hasn’t been signed. However, banks and mortgage lenders often require a signed separation agreement to approve financing. This is because lenders want to understand your ongoing financial obligations, such as spousal or child support, as well as how existing property (like the matrimonial home) is being dealt with.
Why the Separation Date Matters
In Ontario, the division of property is governed by the Family Law Act. The value of each spouse’s net family property is calculated as of the date of separation. Any asset acquired after this date is generally not subject to division. However, if there’s no formal agreement, disputes about the actual separation date can arise, putting your newly purchased property at risk of being included in the division of assets. See: Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 – https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90f03
Can You Be Added to a New Partner’s Property While Separated?
It’s not uncommon for someone who is separated to move in with a new partner and consider being added to their property title. While this may seem like a fresh start, it carries potential legal and financial risks.
If you’re added to your partner’s title before your divorce is finalized and without a separation agreement in place, your ownership interest in the new property could be included in the equalization process, especially if your ex-spouse disputes the separation date.
There’s also the risk that your ex-spouse could allege that joint marital funds were used to support expenses or renovations on the new property, potentially triggering a resulting or constructive trust claim.
To protect both parties, we strongly recommend executing a cohabitation agreement before being added to a partner’s title. This agreement should outline your respective ownership interests and financial obligations, which helps clarify intent and prevent future disputes.
Capital Gains Tax Implications When You Own Two Homes
If you purchase a new home while still owning the former matrimonial home, you may unintentionally trigger a future capital gains tax. This is because the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) allows only one property per family unit to be designated as a principal residence for each tax year. See: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/personal-income/line-12700-capital-gains/principal-residence.html
However, there is a helpful transition rule often referred to as the ‘plus one rule.’ This rule allows a taxpayer to treat both the old and new properties as eligible for the principal residence exemption in the same year, but only if, one home is sold and another is acquired in that same calendar year. For example, if you sell your previous home in 2025 and purchase a new one that same year, the CRA allows you to designate the sold property as your principal residence for all the years it was owned, including 2025, even though you also lived in the newly acquired home during that year. This essentially gives you one tax year where both homes qualify for the exemption, avoiding partial capital gains exposure during the transition.
Important caveats:
Misunderstanding this rule could result in unexpected tax liability. Always consult with a tax advisor to correctly report the sale and strategically plan your principal residence designations. Source: CRA Principal Residence Exemption – https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/personal-income/line-12700-capital-gains/principal-residence.html
Practical Considerations Before Buying a Home Post-Separation
Final Thoughts
Yes, you can legally buy a home in Ontario after separating from your spouse, but without a finalized divorce or a signed separation agreement, you must be extremely careful. Issues related to mortgage qualification, property division, and tax exposure can all complicate what should be a fresh start. As a real estate lawyer, I regularly assist clients navigating the overlap between separation and property acquisition. If you are considering buying a home or being added to someone else’s title while separated, we can help ensure your interests are protected and structured properly.
Contact Rabideau Law today to book a consultation.