<P> Since 1917, with the enacting of the first Brazilian Civil Code, a possessor of a thing, moveable or immoveable, is allowed, in case of disturbance ("turbação") or expulsion ("esbulho"), to "maintain or to reintegrate himself (at the possession of a thing) using its own force, as well as he does it soon". The acts of force employed by the possessor shall not exceed the necessary ones for eliminating the disturbance or for reintegration (Article 502 of the former Civil Code; Federal Ordinary Law 3.071 / 1917). This possibility remained untouched on the Brazilian Civil Code of 2002 (Federal Ordinary Law 10.406 / 2002), in its Article 1.210 . </P> <P> Self - defence of possession is not allowed for the cases of threat ("ameaça"). It is needed for the possessor to be effectively and physically disturbed in its possession ("turbação") or completely severed from it ("esbulho"). A possessor acting under the prescriptions of the Article 1.210 of the Civil Code shall be exempt of any civil or criminal responsibility . In terms of Tort Law, Article 188, inc . I, of the Civil Code states that is not an unlawful act "the regular excercise of a right recognized by the law". </P> <P> According to the Criminal Code of Canada Sections 34 and 35, (which were updated in 2012 with the passage of bill C - 26) force, up to and including lethal force may be used in defence of one's life or "peaceably" possessed property or the defence of another's life or "peaceably" possessed property, and is not considered an offence so long as the person believes that force is being used against them in the case of self - defence, that someone is about to or has broken into or damaged property in the case of defence of property, that they are acting in defence of themselves, someone else or "peaceably" possessed property, and that the act is reasonable in the circumstances . The criminal code also lays out the factors in either case that will be used to determine what constitutes "reasonable given the circumstances". The changes made by the government were to clarify the laws involving self - defence and defence of property, and to help legal professionals to apply the law as believed to reflect the values Canadians hold to be acceptable . </P> <P> In English common law a defendant may seek to avoid criminal or civil liability by claiming that he acted in self - defence . This requires the jury to determine whether the defendant believed that force was necessary to defend him or herself, his or her property, or to prevent a crime, and that the force used was reasonable . While there is no duty to retreat from an attacker and failure to do so is not conclusive evidence that a person did not act in self - defence, it may still be considered by the jury as a relevant factor when assessing the merits of a self - defence claim . The common law duty to retreat was repealed by the Criminal Law Act 1967 . This duty never existed when a person is somewhere he has a lawful right to be, but due to the repeal, now extends to public places, etc . </P>

Is there a stand your ground law in canada
find me the text answering this question