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.
What Happens if a Mortgage Has No Maturity Date in Ontario?
/in Blog, Real Estate /by Geoff RabideauWhen reviewing a mortgage or charge registered on title in Ontario, one of the most important terms is the maturity date—the date on which the full principal becomes due. But what happens if the lender’s charge does not set out a maturity date? Can the lender still enforce the mortgage if the borrower defaults?
At Rabideau Law, we are often asked about this situation, particularly in the context of private mortgages where a maturity date may have been left blank, omitted by mistake, or intentionally left open. Here’s what Ontario law says.
The Legal Framework
Mortgages registered in Ontario are governed primarily by the Mortgages Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.40 and the Land Titles Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.5.
A demand mortgage means the lender can call the loan due at any time by making a written demand for repayment.
This principle is confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Royal Bank of Canada v. W. Got & Associates Electric Ltd., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 408, which held that demand loans are payable immediately once demand is made. Ontario courts apply the same reasoning to mortgages registered on title.
Default and Power of Sale
In Ontario, a lender can only exercise power of sale after a borrower is in default. For a mortgage with no maturity date:
Only after these statutory timeframes expire may the lender proceed to sell the property under power of sale.
Practical Impact
The absence of a maturity date does not make the mortgage unenforceable. Instead, it shifts the mortgage into the category of demand debt. The main practical difference is procedural:
Key Takeaways
How Rabideau Law Can Help
ortgage enforcement is a technical process, and small oversights can create major delays. At Rabideau Law, our team regularly assists lenders, private investors, and borrowers with mortgage enforcement and power of sale proceedings across Ontario.
Whether you are a lender seeking to enforce your rights or a borrower defending against proceedings, we can provide the clarity and strategy you need.
Contact us today to schedule a consultation and discuss your mortgage enforcement options.
Can a Newly Married Spouse Still Claim Ontario’s First-Time Homebuyer Land Transfer Tax Rebate?
/in Family Law, Real Estate /by Geoff RabideauIt’s a common scenario: a newly married couple is purchasing their first home together. The wife has never owned a home, but the husband already owns a rental property. They wonder: Can she still claim the Ontario Land Transfer Tax (LTT) refund for first-time homebuyers if they put 99% of the home in her name?
The answer involves understanding how Ontario’s Land Transfer Tax rules define a ‘first-time homebuyer.’
How the Law Defines “First-Time Homebuyer”
Under the Ontario Land Transfer Tax Act, a person qualifies for the first-time homebuyer refund if:
Key Point: Once you’re married (or in a common-law relationship), your spouse’s property ownership history counts as yours for this purpose—even if you are not on title for that property.
What If the Husband Already Owns a Rental Property?
If the husband owned a property before the marriage, and he still owns it at the time of the new purchase:
If, however: the husband sold his property before the marriage and the wife has never owned a home, she would remain eligible as a first-time homebuyer.
Can You Put 99% in the Wife’s Name?
No.
Allocating 99% (or even 100%) of the title to the first-time buyer does not bypass the rule:
Example
Scenario:
Why This Matters for Clients
Takeaways for Buyers and Real Estate Professionals
Have questions about Ontario’s Land Transfer Tax and first-time buyer rebates?
Contact Rabideau Law—our team can guide you through eligibility, structure your transaction properly, and ensure there are no costly surprises at closing.
When a loved one dies with Ontario real estate but probate was completed in the U.S.
/in Uncategorized /by Geoff RabideauWhen a loved one passes away owning property in Ontario, but their Will is probated in a U.S. state such as Florida, you might assume that the U.S. probate documents will be enough to handle the sale or transfer of the Ontario property. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.
Ontario law requires a separate Ontario court grant before you can deal with Ontario real estate. Without it, the Ontario Land Titles Office and the buyer’s real estate lawyer will not accept your authority to sell the property.
In this post, we explain why U.S. probate isn’t enough, what Ontario requires, how this differs from “resealing,” what probate tax (Estate Administration Tax) you’ll pay, and how to avoid common mistakes—complete with a real-world example.
Resealing vs. Ancillary Probate in Ontario
Ontario recognizes two different paths for foreign probate grants:
1. Resealing
2. Ancillary Appointment (With Will)
If you’re dealing with a U.S. probate, you’ll almost always need an Ancillary Appointment before taking any steps to sell or transfer Ontario property.
What You Must File in Ontario
To obtain an Ontario Certificate of Ancillary Appointment, you must file:
Note on bonds: If the executor is non-resident, the court may require an administration bond unless you apply to have it dispensed with. This is best addressed early to avoid delays.
Ontario’s Estate Administration Tax (“Probate Tax”)
Ontario charges Estate Administration Tax (EAT) based on the value of Ontario assets:
When filing an ancillary application, EAT is calculated only on Ontario-based assets (you do not pay Ontario tax on non-Ontario assets).
Real-World Example: Florida Probate → Ontario Property
Scenario: Janet probated her mother’s Will in Florida. Her mother owned a cottage in Ontario. Janet asked whether the Florida grant could be used to sell the Ontario property.
Answer: Ontario does not accept U.S. probate orders. Janet must apply for an Ontario Certificate of Ancillary Appointment (With Will). She will need:
Outcome: With the Ontario ancillary certificate, Janet can confidently list and sell the Ontario property. The Land Titles Office and the purchaser’s real estate lawyer, as well as her real estate lawyer will recognize her authority to sell the property.
Common Pitfalls (and How to Avoid Them)
How Rabideau Law Can Help
At Rabideau Law, we regularly assist U.S. executors with Ontario estates. Our services include:
If you’re a U.S. executor facing Ontario property issues, contact Rabideau Law today—we make cross-border estate administration seamless.
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.