“Call an Ambulance But Not For Me”: Self Defence and When it Applies

Many of you may be familiar with the infamous “Call An Ambulance But Not For Me”
meme, but for those that are not, here is a quick summary of this iconic video.

Picture an old man minding his business and walking to his car. Suddenly, a young
adult approaches him, brandishes a knife and says “hey old man, gimme everything.”
Startled by the encounter, the old man clutches his left side as if he is experiencing a
heart attack and yells, “call an ambulance, call an ambulance!” But then, in a quick turn
of events the old man unflinchingly pulls out his gun and says, “but not for me.”

Now if this encounter was real and on Canadian soil, the old man may be assessed
under section 34 of the Canadian Criminal Code:
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;

…
(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable 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 respond to the potential use of force;
• (c) the person's role in the incident;
• (d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened 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 relationship 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 between the parties to the incident; 
• (g) the nature and proportionality of the person's response 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.

Now before we “jump the gun” (get it?), we need to make sure that three important
elements are met:

1. (a) 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;
2. (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
3. (c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

For the old man to rely on self-defence, he must raise an “air of reality” under each of those three elements mentioned above: s.34(1)(a)-(c). The crown would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that self-defense does not apply by addressing at least one of those three elements.

In R v Khill, 2021 SCC 37 [Khill], the SCC case involving self-defence, the accused, a former military soldier, woke up in the early morning and investigated a noise he heard outside. Seeing that it was someone near his vehicle, he yelled, “hey hands up!” The man made a motion to turn towards the accused’s voice and was then shot twice: Khill at para 7. The SCC case goes through whether the accused’s actions were reasonable provided the circumstances. From this, we learn that the question is NOT therefore what the accused thought was reasonable based on their characteristics and experiences, but rather what a reasonable person with the relevant characteristics and experiences would perceive: Khill at para 57.

In the old man’s case, what would the reasonable person do? It’s possible that he had a right to self-defence but it’s also possible that pulling out a gun may be a little excessive. The only thing certain in his case was that he definitely didn’t need an ambulance for himself.