Actually you don't. Canada doesn’t have any Stand Your Ground Laws. That being said come at me in my home and chances are things won’t turn out too well.
Here in Canada you would be charged for murdering the thieves, found not guilty after spending a fortune defending yourself, then the justice system would be labeled as biased. Does that sound familiar?
I'm not a lawyer and I assume you're not either. Do correct me if I'm wrong.
All common law jurisdictions allow property to be defended forcibly; Stand Your Ground Laws are one way American gun owners have gotten that principle written into statutes, and gets them off the hook for shooting the guy whose car went off the road and was only coming onto their property to ask for help. If they thought he was a dangerous tresspasser, and didn't stop when they said to, then SYG says it's reasonable to shoot. And kill. Too bad if the accident-victim dies, but the shooter may face no charges.
Or he may be charged, and only get to cite SYG, once he finally gets his day in Court. And course in the next state, a mile away, he might well be charged with some sort of wrongful death. Stand-your-ground laws are not universal nor uniform, American criminal laws vary widely state by state, and they all try to deal with a death that should not have happened. As does our criminal law.
Canada's nation-wide
Criminal Code does explicitly allow a person to defend themselves and others, and defend their property
with reasonable force. Stand Your Ground defines reasonable as I said above. We do that in Courtrooms. Quoting
Bill C-26 (S.C. 2012 c. 9) Reforms to Self-Defence and Defence of Property: Technical Guide for Practitioners "In
Gunning, the defence of property was held to be available to charge of careless use of a firearm."
Presumably what you referred to by "sound familiar" was the recent Canadian case where the property-owner shot and killed the trespasser and was found not guilty by a Court. Just as would have been likely in the US States that do not have have SYG laws. The result's the same there and here, the man defending his property committed no crime, even though that defence cost someone's life. Seems to me an appropriately serious way to decide about anybody's sudden death at the hands of another.
Even SYG States treat deliberate violent death as a serious matter of law, and like us, allow for defence of self and property. They just decide the matter by a different bureaucratic procedure. Hardly worth discussing, unless you think such deaths should be of no concern.
Charging the victim's accomplices with his pre-meditated (1st) murder is curious and unusual, considering it was the home-owner who shot him, and no one actually intended anyone to die that night. But that's all just a Police Chief holding a news conference so far, not even a mention of the District Attorney who will have to prosecute. And BTW, we Canucks also have similar Criminal Code provisions, making accomplices share the guilt for criminal outcomes of their misdeeds.
But that's beyond SYG, which seemed to be all you were interested in. Hopefully we're done with that.