Self-defence with a firearm in Canada vs. America: An unusual case of a man who avoided prosecution for shooting someone on his property
Man who acted in self-defence charged, almost prosecuted in Canadian case that probably would have garnered him hero status in the U.S.
If you’ve seen a lot of Hollywood movies you might think it’s OK to shoot someone who breaks into your house or otherwise acts threatening and violent and refuses to leave your property.
And if you live in Texas and many other states in the U.S., the “stand your ground” doctrine and the “castle” doctrine means you can indeed shoot and kill someone without consequences if that person is threatening you on your property.
In Canada, not so much. In fact, there is no such thing as using a firearm for self-defence in this country so it is very rarely legally acceptable.
But a recent case of a Chilliwack man facing serious criminal charges for shooting another man on his property turned out to be a rare example that tested Canada’s definition of legal self-defence.
Thanks to the opinion of a firearms expert, charges were dropped before they were even pursued in court against Eric Russell Myren. The 49-year-old pleaded guilty on April 16, 2025 to what is essentially an administrative offence because his possession and acquisition licence (PAL) had expired.
To a non-legal expert hearing the circumstances of the case, many would conclude that Myren acted proportionately and as responsibly as one might expect, however, he got unlucky thanks to a ricochet.
Prolific offender Jordan Tyler Wiebe got even unluckier.
A warning shot ricochet
Myren was at the Chilliwack courthouse on March 18, 2025, to be sentenced in the case of the shooting in the Chilliwack River Valley a year and a half ago. I was there too, but it was postponed because the prosecutor was ill. I watched him leave the courthouse and, as I often do, made a note of what he looked like, how he acted, something that I believe are details that add human elements to stories about criminal cases.
I wrote to myself that Myren looked somewhat dishevelled, either tired or possibly intoxicated in some way because he was walking with his eyes almost closed. Bald with a stubbly beard, he wore jeans, a sweatshirt and camouflage jacket, and had a dour look on his face. All I knew at the time was that he was the man who allegedly shot another man. I made a leap of logic that he was a low-level drug dealer or involved in some nefarious activities, which is common among the clientele in criminal court rooms.
What I heard in court on April 16 when the case was heard was a timeline of events very different from that false presumption, and that in part explained his appearance, which I'll come to later.
After the shooting in late summer 2023, a reliable source told me that the victim was a “bad person” himself, which is unremarkable. Most shootings involve criminals shooting other criminals. But Eric Myren is not a criminal. He lived on a rural property in the Chilliwack River Valley with his mother and father who he helped care for.
On Sept. 3, 2023, all three were on the property as was Myren’s friend, Jordan Tyler Wiebe. Wiebe’s girlfriend was also present Crown counsel Aaron Burns said in explaining the circumstances of the case. What was not explained was why she or Wiebe were there, nor the reason why Wiebe was “acting out of his mind” in a rage.
What probably every cop in Chilliwack knows is that Wiebe is a prolific criminal pain in the ass. He's a violent, low-level drug-dealer with a penchant for threatening and beating up girlfriends. The 37-year-old has 60 entries in online court records in provincial court in B.C. going back 20 years, his entire adult life. With 11 K files (domestic assault) between 2007 and 2025, not counting almost 20 more criminal charges for breaching K-file conditions, it's safe to say that single women who see him on Tinder should swipe left.
Wiebe has three separate cases due for disposition in court in three weeks: one for drug trafficking; a K file for assault, mischief, uttering threats, and two breaches; and one case with charges of assault with a weapon, resisting arrest, and causing unnecessary suffering to an animal. The latter two incidents happened well after the shooting in September 2023, and the K file was also in the Chilliwack River Valley.
The exact property Myren lived on was not released, but there are only about half a dozen in that address range, which is west of the Baker Trails Mobile Home Park, completely coincidentally where there was a double homicide 10 days after this shooting.
On that day on Myren’s property, Wiebe was “aggressive and intimidating and threatening [Myren] and his family,” Burns told the court. With his elderly parents and Wiebe's girlfriend present, Wiebe was violent and erratic and pulled an air-conditioning unit out of the house. He also had a knife on him.
Myren was understandably afraid, despite the fact that the two had been friends. He told Wiebe to get off the property.
“Go fuck yourself,” Wiebe responded. “I’ll go where I want.”
Myren then went into the house, grabbed his unloaded Lee Enfield bolt-action rifle and loaded it with one bullet. He went outside to again tell Wiebe to get off his property.
Wiebe did not react well. He approached threateningly so Myren fired the gun into the ground as a warning shot. The bullet ricocheted up and struck Wiebe in the leg, as Burns explained to the court, accidentally.
Myren fled the scene, likely in a panic. The RCMP were called, came and investigated, and found him less than three hours later and he was arrested without incident.
Two days later, police issued a news release about the incident. It said there was no danger to the public, and it was reported that the 35-year-old Wiebe suffered life-threatening injuries and was in hospital.
“A subsequent search of the property has resulted in the seizure of multiple firearms.”
Myren was later charged with aggravated assault, discharging a firearm with intent to wound or disfigure, and possession of a firearm without licence and/or registration.
In October 2024, a trial was scheduled with a preliminary hearing. In preparing for the case, prosecutors hired a firearms expert to examine the evidence and determine what was more likely between the two conflicting stories about the shooting. Myren said it was a ricochet, Wiebe said he was shot directly.
Given the type of powerful rifle used, the expert concluded that if Wiebe had been shot directly in the leg, there would have been a round hole at the site of impact and an explosive wound coming out the back of his leg. Instead, Wiebe had an explosive wound as the impact injury.
The expert concluded that Myren was the one telling the truth, that the bullet likely hit the ground, started to explode as it ricocheted and then hit Wiebe in the leg causing the serious injury.
“This was done in self-defence,” Burns explained to Judge Peter Whyte. “Police found a pocket knife. And Mr. Myren did not have an updated PAL.”
It was self-defence but more importantly the actual injury was the result of an accident so, because of this evidence, Crown dropped the two most serious charges although they had to proceed on the unlicensed charge.
“He has been licensed with a PAL but it had expired,” Burns said. “He was a responsible gun user and had previous training.”
Myren pleaded guilty as soon as he was told the other charges were being dropped, and Burns and defence lawyer Philip Derksen entered a joint submission of a 12-month conditional sentence and a 10-year firearm prohibition.
Asked if he wanted to address the court, Myren did briefly.
“Sorry for what happened,” he said. “It haunts me every day. He is a friend of mine.”
Since the incident, Myren’s father passed away. They moved away from the large property where the incident occurred. And Myren’s glasses were broken in the altercation, glasses that have specialized lenses, and he hasn’t been able to replace them. All of that might explain his appearance when I saw him leaving court a month prior: Traumatized, haunted, visually impaired.
As for Wiebe, he didn’t skip a beat and despite the serious leg injury, kept up his criminal behaviour on the streets of Chilliwack.
“Mr. Wiebe has not changed his ways,” Derksen told the court. “I see him on court lists often these days.”
He's next due for disposition of the three files listed above on May 12, 2025.
What's OK in Texas is not in Canada
When is it legal to use a firearm in self-defence in Canada? If the firearm is discharged and someone, even an intruder or attacker, is injured or killed, the short answer is almost never.
Section 34 of the criminal code explains the circumstances under which a person would be not guilty of an offence, and it’s a fine line between believing on "reasonable grounds" that you are in danger and your response is “reasonable in the circumstances.”
What does that mean? “Reasonable” is a subjective term to most people, a nebulous word but an important one in the Canadian criminal code, whether it is defining what constitutes a “reasonable person” or “reasonable doubt.”
What is clear is that it is almost never OK to use a gun in self-defence in Canada.
“Here’s the bottom line: If you accidentally kill your attacker using a firearm, you could be charged and end up serving a multi-year prison sentence, even if the initial intent of the encounter from your side was self-defence and even if the firearm use was done in error.”
That’s advice from Calgary-based criminal defence lawyers Wyman & Williamson in an article on the topic on their website.
In a brief video on his website, Ontario criminal lawyer Michael Kruse explains some of the differences in self-defence laws in Canada and the U.S.
In the U.S. they have “stand your ground” doctrine which means when threatened in most circumstances, “you have absolutely no duty to retreat.”
In Canada, one can stand their ground but because of section 34(2) of the criminal code, whether there was a duty to retreat is something a judge would consider in an incident of violent self-defence. A judge also has to weigh several factors to determine if the act is “reasonable in the circumstances.”
“Pretty airy fairy thing isn’t that?” Kruse says. “But, you know, if there was a real opportunity to retreat, then you might not be successful in your self-defence.”
Also in the U.S. is the “castle” doctrine, which does not apply in Canada at all.
“A man or woman’s in charge of their castle,” Kruse explains. “So if an intruder breaks in, they’re allowed to use lethal force to kill them and they can do.”
In Canada, we do not have such a doctrine and people have to act “reasonably in the circumstances” to protect themselves and their property and “use proportional force and reasonableness.”
It's a lot safer to be a property criminal in Canada, that's for sure.
“Burglar is a bad occupation to have in Texas because you’re going to get shot and killed.”
-30-
Paul J. Henderson
pauljhenderson@gmail.com
facebook.com/PaulJHendersonJournalist
instagram.com/wordsarehard_pjh
x.com/PeeJayAitch
wordsarehard-pjh.bsky.social