Castle Doctrine in Ontario: a jury is not entitled to consider whether an accused could have retreated from his or her own home in the face of an attack

R. v. Forde, 2011 ONCA 592 is a clear statement that the Castle Doctrine applies in Ontario. The Court cites Cardozo J. in People v. Tomlins, 213 NY 240 (1914), at pp. 243:

It is not now, and never has been the law that a man assailed in his own dwelling, is bound to retreat. If assailed there, he may stand his ground, and resist the attack. He is under no duty to take to the field and the highways, a fugitive from his own home.

The Court holds:

[55] Having regard to these authorities, I reject the Crown's position that while retreat from one's own home is not a necessary element to claiming self-defence, it may nonetheless be a factor for the jury to consider. By giving an instruction along the lines the Crown suggests, the danger would always remain that the jury would all too quickly leap from the factor of retreat to the inference that there is no entitlement to self-defence. As the case law referred to above establishes, a jury is not entitled to consider whether an accused could have retreated from his or her own home in the face of an attack (or threatened attack) by an assailant in assessing the elements of self-defence under s. 34(2).