-----

Google Ai request for "Bellefeuille wellness checks requirements", :AI Overview at https://www.google.ca/search?lr=&sca_esv=515a414c30578db2&as_qdr=all&sxsrf=AE3TifO6GMrdwh4s_M2gPSgFny8MMQ00Zw:1756022463980&q=Bellefeuille+wellness+checks+requirements&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi1rru5_aKPAxWJAHkGHYbINak4ChDVAnoECB0QAQ&biw=1104&bih=570&dpr=1.58

Wellness chcks...por procedure at https://ca.news.yahoo.com/bellefeuille-unresponsive-crying-shooting-opp-023211639.html

Wellness checks

gun out

Lauzon was the officer who went in first, announcing police and calling out Alain by name twice. Lauzon had his pistol drawn as he entered the door for the mental-health call. Mueller’s pistol never left its holster and was gunned down in seconds.

The OPP’s mobile crisis response team, which includes health professionals, is designed to de-escalate at wellness checks.

That unit didn’t work the night shift.

The new Act amended the Occupiers Liability Act, 2000 and added the following sections:

• Purpose: To develop and recommend legislative reforms for self-defence in Canada.
• Origin: The core elements of the reforms were initially developed by a joint FPT Working Group.
• Outcome: Their recommendations were accepted by FPT Ministers responsible for Justice in 2009, leading to the legislative changes in Bill C-26.
• Collaboration: The group fostered a common understanding of the law through the collaboration of federal and provincial/territorial justice officials.
• Impact: Their work led to significant reforms in the Canadian Criminal Code regarding the law of self-defence and defence of others. 

Self Defence Provisions in the Criminal Code

Ministers agreed it was time to review the self-defence sections of the Criminal Code and directed officials to examine proposals to clarify the law and bring back recommendations .

 Those who have to administer and explain it - the legal profession and the agencies of justice - as lawyers
 tend to think?  Those surveying its logic, coherence, and systematization - jurists and legal scientists?
 Or since codes start life as bills, those who are asked to enact it - the legislators?   Or,  finally, some
 combination of the above?

R. v. Khill SCC on 2021at https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/19020/index.do

Bill C-26 (S.C. 2012 c. 9)
Reforms to Self-Defence and
Defence of Property:
Technical Guide for Practitioners

at https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/rsddp-rlddp/index.html

dated March 2013

 
Who are the criminal code's intended readers?  The people governed by it - the public as Bentham thought?
 Those who have to administer and explain it - the legal profession and the agencies of justice - as lawyers
 tend to think?  Those surveying its logic, coherence, and systematization - jurists and legal scientists?
 Or since codes start life as bills, those who are asked to enact it - the legislators?   Or,  finally, some
 combination of the above?

Surely Bentham was right.  A country's law belongs not to its nation's judges, its lawyers, or its politicians
but to all its inhabitants and citizens.  The latter are surely the prime addressees of codes, statutes, and
other legislation.  This conclusion follows from the basic values and concepts of the common law itself.

Defence — use or threat of force Défense

34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is
being used against them or another person or that a
threat of force is being made against them or another
person;

(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed
for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves
or the other person from that use or threat of force;
and

(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circum-
stances.

(2) In determining whether the act committed is reason-
able in the circumstances, the court shall consider the
relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties
and the act, including, but not limited to, the following
factors:

(a) the nature of the force or threat;

(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent
and whether there were other means available to re-
spond to the potential use of force;

(c) the person’s role in the incident;
(d) whether any party to the incident used or threat-
ened to use a weapon;

(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of
the parties to the incident;

(f) the nature, duration and history of any relation-
ship between the parties to the incident, including any
prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force
or threat;

(f.1) any history of interaction or communication be-
tween the parties to the incident;

(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s re-
sponse to the use or threat of force; and

(h) whether the act committed was in response to a
use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

Many of the factors that the trier of fact must consider
in assessing reasonableness are familiar features of the law of self-defence,
including imminence, proportionality, and whether the accused had other
options available to him or her. The difference between the old and the new
provisions is that these features are no longer absolute requirements or
barriers to making out self-defence. They are “merely … factor[s] that must
be considered in determining whether any act of self-defence is reasonable
in the circumstances.”12
12 Roach, ibid at 277
[p. 304]


Finally, in 1998, the federal government released Reforming Criminal
Code Defences: Provocation, Self-defence and Defence of Property: A
Consultation Paper. 55 As the executive summary made clear, the
consultation paper “[did] not reflect government policy” but was merely
“intended to generate discussion on the issues raised.” The consultation
paper was largely structured around the formulations of self-defence
articulated in the Self-Defence Review and in the 1993 White Paper. [p. 311]



The most distinctive feature of the new section 34 is the list of factors that triers
of fact must consider in determining whether the accused’s actions were
reasonable in the circumstances. This approach to self-defence was
recommended by A Feminist Review of Criminal Law, the Self-Defence
Review, and by What Would a Women’s Law of Self-Defence Look Like?
[p. 311]

The new section 34 requires judges and juries to engage in a Lavallee-
style contextual analysis of all self-defence claims. [p. 317]

n this paper I have suggested that the new law of self-defence aligns
closely with feminist law reform efforts and with the Supreme Court’s
decision in Lavallee [p. 325-326]


Elizabeth SHEEHY, "What would a Women's Law of Self-Defence Look Like?", Ottawa: Status of Women Canada, 1995, available at
Emeritus Professor, University of Ottawa,Elizabeth.Sheehy@uOttawa.ca, and retired in 1998 see cv at https://www.uottawa.ca/faculty-law/common-law/faculty/sheehy-elizabeth

Christine Boyle, Marie-Andrée Bertrand, Céline Lacerte-Lamontagne and Rebecca Shamai "A Feminist Review of Criminal Law", 1985, Ottawa: Status of
Women Canada, 1985)

• July 25, 1997, Stephen Bindman in an article, "Bureaucrats 'scorned' judge's  report",  affirms that Judge Ratushny who wrote the report, Self Defence Review: Final Report Submitted to the Minister of Justice Canada and to the Solicitor General of Canada wrote a letter to the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada critizing senior bucreaucrta's attitudes towards her work:

    In the letter, she cited several examples of resistance from officials that she fears will affect their advice on her recommendations to the new ministers:
...

François Lareau,  2018,
 

The divergence of common law thinking from continental thinking
on putative self-defense derives from a matrix of interrelated assump-
tions. American lawyers tend to think of all available legal defenses
as analogous, tend to assume that what is permissible is justified, and
tend to view rights as trumpable claims. At the foundation of these
assumptions lies the cement of reasonableness, a concept that enables
20 (1968) (in cases of strict liability, where fault is not an issue, we have "the sense that an
important principle has been sacrificed").
1985]
HARVARD LAW REVIEW
Americans to blur distinctions between objective and subjective, self-
defense and putative self-defense, wrongdoing and responsibility

Right and reasonable at p. 979-980 https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2042&context=faculty_scholarship

----

It should be noted that this type of mandatory presumption is uncon-
stitutional if reasonableness is an element of the offense or integrated in an
element of the offense because it relieves the state of its burden of proving
the elements of the offense. 0 '
101. See, eg., Patterson,432 U.S. 197; Sandstrom, 442 U.S. 510; Francis,471 U.S. 307

at p. 252 of https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1110&context=jleg

-------

Consultation paper at https://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/cpLegitimateDefence.pdf997. at p. 5

1.03 The starting point in identifying the rules which govern the
defence of legitimate defence is the oft-quoted passage of the 1879 Criminal
Law Commissioners:
“We take one great principle of the common law to be, that
though it sanctions the defence of a man’s person, liberty, and
property against illegal violence, and permits the use of force to
prevent crimes, to preserve the public peace, and to bring
offenders to justice, yet all this is subject to the restriction that the
force used is necessary; that is, that the mischief sought to be
prevented could not be prevented by less violent means; and that
the mischief done by, or which might reasonably be anticipated
from the force used is not disproportioned to the injury or
mischief which it is intended to prevent.”1
1.04 Though this passage only touches upon some of the key issues
which arise in legitimate defence, it stands in stark contrast to the
1 (1879) C2345 at 11. The Commissioners were Lord Blackburn and Stephen, Lush
and Barry JJ.

RCMP watchdog calls out 'unreasonable' use of force during wellness checks