Supreme Court of Canada stands behind corporal punishment – sort of...

Abstract

On 30 January 2004 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, in a 6-3 decision, that section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada does not violate the rights of children. Section 43 provides a legal defence for parents, teachers and others acting in the place of a parent who use force (corporal punishment) to correct a child's behaviour (Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004). However, the Supreme Court set limits on when and under what conditions section 43 can be used as a defence (Table 1).Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada states that:Every school teacher, parent or person standing in the place of the parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward the pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances. * i s wEvery individual is equal before and under the law and has the right of equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Are We "There" Yet?: A Comparative Analysis of the Canadian Standards on the Corporal Punishment of Children in Schools

“…In addition, the above judgement states that teachers are not allowed to use corporal punishment, however they may still apply "reasonable" force when they see fit, to remove a student from a classroom and to carry out their responsibilities (Watkinson, 2006). In accordance with the 2004 ruling, the use of "minor corrective force" is still allowed in ten provinces and three territories but may only consist "of a transient and trifling nature."…”

Predicting Adults’ Approval of Physical Punishment From Their Perceptions of Their Childhood Experiences

“…In 2004, Canada's Supreme Court upheld the section of the Criminal Code that allows parental use of corrective force, but narrowed the definition of "reasonable" force to that applied with the hand with an impact that is "transitory and trifling" (for analyses of this ruling see McGillivray, 2011aMcGillivray, , 2011bMcGillivray & Durrant, 2012;McGillivray & Milne, 2011;Watkinson, 2006Watkinson, , 2009. The Court assumed that it is the severity of physical punishment that is the fundamental issue in protecting children, failing to recognize that its implicit legitimization of physical punishment per se may be its most powerful message, perpetuating its perceived acceptability in the public mind (Durrant, Sigvaldason, & Bednar, 2008;McGillivray, 2011b).…”