Hmmm. The article indicates a broken window, and further ‘medical and forensic evidence’. If the broken window was the point of access, it might indicate that a lot of the cuts sustained by the alleged intruder could be traced to the broken glass. That fact would change the entire scenario. It then becomes ‘much ado about nothing’.
Here’s the thing. I hear this a lot. And every single time that I’ve ever been presented with an example, and looked into it deep enough, or enough time has passed that more information came to light, every obvious case of Canada’s self-defence laws “failing” has always turned out to be “No, actually, in this case there really was a line crossed.”
That’s not to say that no law can ever fail. Laws do get misapplied, and no law is perfect. There are edge cases where people will simply disagree; that happens a lot with the law. There are entire fields of academia basically devoted to disagreeing about laws. But it is remarkable that I have never yet seen even one clear cut case of “Wow, that guy totally did not deserve to get charged with anything, he was clearly just defending himself,” that didn’t turn out to be something far more ambiguous, if not outright damning to the defendant when the details are known.