233:
29:
637:. The Foundation proposed three claims as mentioned above. McLachlin rejected the first claim that it failed to give procedural protection as children receive all the same protection as anyone else. On the second claim, she rejected that the "best interests of the child" is a principle of fundamental justice as there is no "consensus that it is vital or fundamental to our societal notion of justice".
640:
On the third, she rejected the claim that the law is vague and overbroad on grounds that the law "delineates a risk zone for criminal sanction". She examined the meaning of "reasonable under the circumstances" stating that it included only "minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature",
594:
The court first defined what types of force could be considered reasonable in the circumstances, the court held that in order for corporal punishment to be considered reasonable it could only be used for corrective purposes against children capable of appreciating it, could only be "transitory and
679:
test). On this point she acknowledged that children need to be protected, and in furtherance of this goal parents and teachers require protection as well. Section 43 decriminalizes "only minimal force of transient or trivial impact" and to remove such protection would be dangerous as it would
671:
When identifying from whose perspective the analysis must be, McLachlin noted that rather than take the perspective of a young child, which would prove too difficult, it must be viewed from the perspective of a "reasonable person acting on behalf of a child" and apprised of the law.
641:
but it did not include "corporal punishment of children under two or teenagers", or "degrading, inhuman or harmful conduct" such as "discipline by the use of objects", "blows or slaps to the head" or acts of anger. The test is purely objective, McLachlin claimed.
555:
43. Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the
550:
The
Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law applied for a declaration to strike-down section 43 of the Criminal Code which states, under the section entitled "Protection of Persons in Authority",
653:
1 S.C.R. 1045 as "so excessive as to outrage standards of decency", McLachlin rejected the claim as the section only permits "corrective force that is reasonable" and thus cannot be excessive by definition.
629:
Section 7 protects individuals from violation of their personal security. McLachlin found that there was no violation of the section. The Crown had conceded that the law adversely affected the child's
539:
675:
McLachlin said that the claim hinges on demonstrating the lack of "correspondence between the distinction and the claimant's characteristics or circumstances" (the second contextual factor from the
535:
531:
595:
trifling" in nature, and could not be done in a degrading or harmful manner. The court ruled that in order to be protected by section 43 and not be considered assault, corporal punishment must:
414:
119:, provided the section is interpreted as follows: (1) The force must be intended to actually correct the child's behaviour. (2) The force cannot result in harm or the prospect of harm.
689:
564:
section 7 of the
Canadian Charter because it fails to give procedural protections to children, does not further the best interests of the child, and is both overbroad and vague;
496:
379:
662:
Section 15(1) is the equality guarantee that protects individuals from discrimination. McLachlin examined the claim using the analytical framework from
758:
419:
788:
519:
232:
115:
753:
718:
472:
793:
778:
680:
criminalize acts such as "placing an unwilling child in a chair for a five-minute 'time-out'" which would risk destroying the family.
773:
489:
247:
768:
409:
216:
570:
section 15(1) of the
Charter because it denies children the legal protection against assaults that is accorded to adults.
803:
482:
348:
252:
457:
86:
649:
Section 12 prevents "cruel and unusual punishment". Citing the standard of showing cruel and unusual punishment from
763:
530:
that allowed for a defence of reasonable use of force by way of correction towards children as not in violation of
257:
82:
599:
be done by a parent or someone in the standing of a parent (effectively outlawing corporal punishment in schools),
605:
not be conducted in a manner that either causes or has the potential to cause harm, including bruising or marks,
702:
523:
34:
527:
343:
109:
735:
399:
620:
not be used against children with disabilities that make them incapable of appreciating the punishment.
113:(which allows parents and teachers to use force to correct a child's behaviour) does not infringe the
28:
389:
298:
798:
710:
634:
450:
404:
224:
715:
608:
not be used out of frustration, loss of temper, or because of the caregiver's abusive personality,
630:
583:
443:
394:
132:
783:
318:
278:
151:
182:
McLachlin C.J. (paras. 1-70), joined by
Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and LeBel JJ.
384:
358:
139:
706:
567:
section 12 of the
Charter because it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment or treatment;
722:
167:
143:
54:
Canadian
Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Attorney General in Right of Canada
288:
747:
664:
308:
159:
147:
60:
303:
163:
617:
not be done in a manner that is otherwise degrading, inhumane, or harmful, and
333:
273:
155:
338:
283:
579:
The
Supreme Court handed down its 6 to 3 decision on January 30, 2004.
328:
323:
586:
with
Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and LeBel JJ. concurring.
293:
353:
313:
633:, so the issue was whether the violation offended a principle of
602:
only be used against children between the ages of two and twelve,
511:
Canadian
Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada (AG)
22:
Canadian
Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada (AG)
363:
716:
Parliament publication on section 43 of the Criminal Code
690:
List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (McLachlin Court)
560:
The basis of which is because the provision violates:
611:
not be conducted with objects, like belts or rulers,
202:
194:
186:
178:
173:
123:
101:
93:
77:
69:
59:
49:
42:
21:
553:
514:, 1 S.C.R. 76, 2004 SCC 4 – known also as the
490:
8:
497:
483:
211:
526:where the Court upheld section 43 of the
728:
466:
427:
371:
265:
239:
223:
116:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
18:
473:Campaigns against corporal punishment
7:
582:The majority opinion was written by
736:SCC Case Information - Docket 29113
14:
759:Section Fifteen Charter case law
231:
27:
789:Section Seven Charter case law
1:
754:Supreme Court of Canada cases
614:not hit the child on the head
206:Deschamps J. (paras. 212-246)
16:Supreme Court of Canada case
458:Tyrer v. the United Kingdom
87:Court of Appeal for Ontario
820:
794:Canadian criminal case law
198:Arbour J. (paras. 131-211)
83:Attorney General of Canada
45:Judgment: January 30, 2004
779:2004 in Canadian case law
190:Binnie J. (paras. 71-130)
128:
106:
26:
774:Canadian family case law
590:Limits on reasonableness
738:Supreme Court of Canada
703:Supreme Court of Canada
584:Chief Justice McLachlin
524:Supreme Court of Canada
65:1 S.C.R. 76, 2004 SCC 4
35:Supreme Court of Canada
705:decision available at
558:
43:Hearing: June 6, 2003
769:Canadian juvenile law
415:United Arab Emirates
804:Childhood in Canada
635:fundamental justice
225:Corporal punishment
721:2007-07-03 at the
631:security of person
444:Ingraham v. Wright
133:Beverley McLachlin
107:Section 43 of the
764:Juvenile case law
507:
506:
299:Cat o' nine tails
266:By implementation
210:
209:
152:Michel Bastarache
97:Appeal dismissed.
81:Judgment for the
811:
739:
733:
542:of the Charter.
522:decision of the
499:
492:
485:
235:
212:
140:Charles Gonthier
137:Puisne Justices:
124:Court membership
31:
19:
819:
818:
814:
813:
812:
810:
809:
808:
744:
743:
742:
734:
730:
723:Wayback Machine
698:
686:
660:
647:
627:
592:
577:
548:
518:– is a leading
503:
437:CFCYL v. Canada
168:Marie Deschamps
144:Frank Iacobucci
135:
44:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
817:
815:
807:
806:
801:
796:
791:
786:
781:
776:
771:
766:
761:
756:
746:
745:
741:
740:
727:
726:
725:
713:
697:
696:External links
694:
693:
692:
685:
682:
659:
656:
646:
643:
626:
623:
622:
621:
618:
615:
612:
609:
606:
603:
600:
591:
588:
576:
573:
572:
571:
568:
565:
556:circumstances.
547:
544:
505:
504:
502:
501:
494:
487:
479:
476:
475:
469:
468:
464:
463:
462:
461:
454:
447:
440:
430:
429:
425:
424:
423:
422:
417:
412:
407:
402:
397:
392:
387:
382:
374:
373:
369:
368:
367:
366:
361:
356:
351:
346:
341:
336:
331:
326:
321:
316:
311:
306:
301:
296:
291:
286:
281:
276:
268:
267:
263:
262:
261:
260:
255:
250:
242:
241:
237:
236:
228:
227:
221:
220:
208:
207:
204:
200:
199:
196:
192:
191:
188:
187:Concur/dissent
184:
183:
180:
176:
175:
171:
170:
130:Chief Justice:
126:
125:
121:
120:
104:
103:
99:
98:
95:
91:
90:
79:
75:
74:
71:
67:
66:
63:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
32:
24:
23:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
816:
805:
802:
800:
797:
795:
792:
790:
787:
785:
782:
780:
777:
775:
772:
770:
767:
765:
762:
760:
757:
755:
752:
751:
749:
737:
732:
729:
724:
720:
717:
714:
712:
708:
704:
701:Full text of
700:
699:
695:
691:
688:
687:
683:
681:
678:
677:Law v. Canada
673:
669:
667:
666:
665:Law v. Canada
658:Section 15(1)
657:
655:
652:
644:
642:
638:
636:
632:
624:
619:
616:
613:
610:
607:
604:
601:
598:
597:
596:
589:
587:
585:
580:
574:
569:
566:
563:
562:
561:
557:
552:
545:
543:
541:
540:section 15(1)
537:
533:
529:
528:Criminal Code
525:
521:
517:
516:spanking case
513:
512:
500:
495:
493:
488:
486:
481:
480:
478:
477:
474:
471:
470:
465:
460:
459:
455:
453:
452:
448:
446:
445:
441:
439:
438:
434:
433:
432:
431:
426:
421:
420:United States
418:
416:
413:
411:
408:
406:
403:
401:
398:
396:
393:
391:
388:
386:
383:
381:
378:
377:
376:
375:
370:
365:
362:
360:
357:
355:
352:
350:
347:
345:
342:
340:
337:
335:
332:
330:
327:
325:
322:
320:
317:
315:
312:
310:
309:Foot whipping
307:
305:
302:
300:
297:
295:
292:
290:
287:
285:
282:
280:
277:
275:
272:
271:
270:
269:
264:
259:
256:
254:
251:
249:
246:
245:
244:
243:
238:
234:
230:
229:
226:
222:
218:
214:
213:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
174:Reasons given
172:
169:
165:
161:
160:Louise Arbour
157:
153:
149:
148:John C. Major
145:
141:
138:
134:
131:
127:
122:
118:
117:
112:
111:
110:Criminal Code
105:
100:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
78:Prior history
76:
72:
68:
64:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
36:
30:
25:
20:
731:
676:
674:
670:
663:
661:
650:
648:
639:
628:
593:
581:
578:
559:
554:
549:
515:
510:
509:
508:
456:
451:S v Williams
449:
442:
436:
435:
304:Flagellation
136:
129:
114:
108:
53:
33:
651:R. v. Smith
428:Court cases
380:Afghanistan
359:Riding crop
164:Louis LeBel
799:Child care
748:Categories
645:Section 12
546:Background
536:section 12
372:By country
334:Slippering
274:Amputation
156:Ian Binnie
70:Docket No.
625:Section 7
532:section 7
405:Singapore
344:Strapping
61:Citations
784:Spanking
719:Archived
684:See also
467:Politics
395:Malaysia
339:Spanking
289:Branding
284:Birching
253:Judicial
248:Domestic
240:By place
217:a series
215:Part of
179:Majority
520:Charter
329:Sjambok
324:Scourge
279:Belting
203:Dissent
195:Dissent
102:Holding
85:in the
711:CanLII
575:Ruling
410:Taiwan
385:Brunei
349:Switch
319:Paddle
294:Caning
258:School
94:Ruling
73:29113
707:LexUM
400:Qatar
354:Tawse
314:Knout
709:and
390:Iran
364:Whip
538:or
166:,
750::
668:.
534:,
219:on
162:,
158:,
154:,
150:,
146:,
142:,
498:e
491:t
484:v
89:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
