No, Security Guards Cannot Consent to Being Assaulted
Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers seeking legal guidance should consult a licensed attorney.
KAMLOOPS, B.C. — March 21, 2025 — The British Columbia Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal from protester Nicole Manuel, reaffirming a key legal principle for front-line professionals: under Canadian law, security guards cannot consent to being assaulted simply because of the nature of their work.
Manuel, a member of the Tiny House Warriors, was convicted of assaulting Trans Mountain security guard Peter Haring during a December 2018 protest at Thompson Rivers University. The demonstration escalated when protesters attempted to force their way into a closed-door meeting about the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. According to the court record, Manuel knocked off Haring’s glasses and attempted to strike him in the groin during the encounter.
Her appeal claimed the trial judge failed to fully consider whether the guard had somehow consented to the physical contact, an argument B.C. Supreme Court Justice Lindsey Lyster found to be without merit. The conviction for assault, along with charges of causing a disturbance and mischief, was upheld.
No Role Includes “Assault Target”
The legal defense of consent in assault cases does exist in Canada, but it is narrowly defined. It typically applies in structured, consensual activities such as contact sports. In R v. Jobidon (1991), the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that individuals cannot legally consent to intentional force resulting in bodily harm outside of a sanctioned or regulated context.
Further, Section 265(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada makes it clear that consent is not valid when it arises from an abuse or exercise of authority. That means a security guard performing duties under lawful authority cannot be presumed to have accepted physical violence as part of the job — even in volatile or high-conflict situations.
The Misconception of “Implied Risk”
Despite this legal clarity, the perception that guards somehow “signed up for it” persists in public discourse. This misconception minimizes the risks security professionals face and ignores their right to legal protection while performing essential functions in high-stress environments.
In reality, no profession that involves public-facing duties — whether it’s paramedics, customer service staff, or security officers — should be expected to endure physical assault as a condition of employment. The law, rightly, supports this position.
Why This Matters for the Industry
With public demonstrations, mental health emergencies, and physical confrontations on the rise in both public and private spaces, security guards are increasingly in the position of being first responders. Their job is to protect property, maintain order, and de-escalate conflict — not to absorb abuse.
This ruling sends a strong message: engaging in violence against a security professional will not be excused by claims that the guard somehow “consented” through their uniform or mandate.
The March 21 decision reinforces that a person cannot consent to serious harm simply by showing up to work. Security professionals deserve the same legal protection as any other citizen — and the law is on their side.
When guards are assaulted, the courts will not entertain arguments that their presence invited violence. It’s time the public stopped entertaining that argument too.
