Call Us Now
Email Us NowI am a parent of two teenagers, so this topic resonates with me.
If you are a recent immigrant to Canada, or even plan on staying here for a while, this content is especially relevant for you.
How do we discipline our children in a way that respects both our cultural values and Canadian legal boundaries? This is a conversation our communities need to keep having. Every parent who has ever felt overwhelmed or unsure about what is “too far” is not alone!
Our Firm recently completed a criminal case that made me confront this emotionally charged issue: What happens when a parent disciplines their child and the law gets involved? When the legal system steps into the family sphere to protect the child, it can feel like an intrusion into private family matters. But here’s a hard truth: In Canada, your children are not just your children; they are also the Government’s concern. I remember hearing my mother refer to relatives’ children living abroad as “omo ijoba ni won” (they belong to the government). That phrase is clearer to me now.
In this recent case, we represented a client who was, thankfully, discharged with conditions, after pleading guilty to s. 267(a) of the Criminal Code “assault with a weapon: to wit, a belt.” As much as I empathized with their intent to raise a respectful child, I also saw firsthand how one moment of frustration can change everything.
Our client, after unsuccessfully trying to reason with their teenage child for fighting with an older sibling, resorted to corporal punishment. In many cultures, this would be seen as an appropriate response to disrespect. But while the act came from frustration and a belief in parental authority, the legal consequences were real. They raise an important question in Canadian society: Where do we draw the line between discipline and abuse? A lot is still left to be written on the subject.
The Legal Framework: Section 43 of the Criminal Code
“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… if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances”
This was a standard defence that our client could have benefitted from, but the defence did not apply to their specific sets of circumstances. And here’s why:
The Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances in the landmark case of Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 4. They set strict boundaries around this provision by limiting the scope of the defence on what constitutes reasonable force.
Key takeaways from their decision include:
- Only children aged 2 to 12 can be subject to corrective force under Section 43.
- The force must be minor, transitory, and not degrading.
- Objects, like belts or rulers must not be used.
- Force must not be applied to the head.
- Force must be for corrective purposes and not out of anger or frustration.
In other words, while the law provides limited protection for corrective discipline, it absolutely prohibits physical punishment of teenagers, the use of weapons, and actions done in anger.
In our client’s case, although the corrective force was transitory, it was not to the head, and it was preceded by genuine correction, it was used on a teenager and with an object.
The Supreme Court decided as follows in Paragraph 37
“… Corporal punishment of children under two years is harmful to them, and has no corrective value given the cognitive limitations of children under two years of age. Corporal punishment of teenagers is harmful, because it can induce aggressive or antisocial behaviour. Corporal punishment using objects, such as rulers or belts, is physically and emotionally harmful. Corporal punishment which involves slaps or blows to the head is harmful. These types of punishment, we may conclude, will not be reasonable”.
At Paragraph 40
“When these considerations are taken together, a solid core of meaning emerges for “reasonable under the circumstances”, sufficient to establish a zone in which discipline risks criminal sanction. Generally, s. 43 exempts from criminal sanction only minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature. On the basis of current expert consensus, it does not apply to corporal punishment of children under two or teenagers. Degrading, inhuman or harmful conduct is not protected. Discipline by the use of objects or blows or slaps to the head is unreasonable. Teachers may reasonably apply force to remove a child from a classroom or secure compliance with instructions, but not merely as corporal punishment. Coupled with the requirement that the conduct be corrective, which rules out conduct stemming from the caregiver’s frustration, loss of temper or abusive personality, a consistent picture emerges of the area covered by s. 43. It is wrong for law enforcement officers or judges to apply their own subjective views of what is “reasonable under the circumstances”; the test is objective. The question must be considered in context and in light of all the circumstances of the case. The gravity of the precipitating event is not relevant.”
Why Teenagers Are Legally Protected from Physical Discipline
By age 13, Canadian law recognizes that children have more cognitive and emotional maturity. They are expected to understand discipline and consequences differently. Courts have determined that physical discipline of teens is not justified and may constitute assault, even if intended as correction.
This often comes as a shock to parents raised in cultures or generations where corporal punishment was normalized. But in Canadian law, the best interests of the child, including their safety and dignity, are paramount.
The Role of Denunciation and Deterrence in Sentencing of Child Abuse Cases
Section 718.01 of the Criminal Code states:
“When a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person under the age of eighteen years, it shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct.”
In sentencing parents convicted of child assault, courts must balance compassion with the legal duty to deter and denounce the conduct. This reflects a collective societal stance: Violence—even within families—is not tolerated.
In our client’s case, this was a recurring theme during resolution talks with the Crown. What sentence would adequately reflect denunciation and deterrence?
In R v P.C.M., 2020 SKQB 118, the Court of Kings Bench heard a Crown Appeal regarding a sentencing decision where the accused, under intoxication, assaulted her 11-year-old son. Though the accused was discharged with probation by the Provincial court, the Appellate Court ruled that the original sentence lacked the necessary denunciation and deterrence.
At Paragraph 26
“In the sentencing decision, the principles of sentencing are addressed in the following terms:
9 The primary considerations in child abuse cases are the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence: Criminal Code, s. 718.01. Having said that, when considering the appropriate sentence in any given case, sentencing judges must be guided by the principles enumerated in ss. 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code, which state that the sentencing judge’s role is to determine a sentence that is appropriate to the circumstances of the offence, to the circumstances of the offender, to the victims, and to the community.
10 Ultimately, what I must do is to impose a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence, the moral blameworthiness of the defendant’s conduct, her personal circumstances, and the effect that her conduct had on her son: R v Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13 at para 37, [2012] 1 SCR 433 [Ipeelee]; R v Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at para 53, [2015] 3 SCR 1089.
At Paragraph 27
“Having thus enunciated the principles, the learned sentencing judge went on to accomplish a number of tasks. He identified mitigating and aggravating factors, located the offence within the two types of physical child abuse identified in Marks, outlined Ms. M.’s personal circumstances, and assessed the sentencing precedents filed by Crown and defence. Thereafter, without further reference to s. 718.0, the learned sentencing judge returned to the sentencing objectives …
What This Means for Parents Today
The sentencing judge in our client’s case rightfully commented that parenting is hard, and adolescence can be one of the most trying stages. The teen years can stretch anyone’s patience. But Canadian law is clear: violence is never an acceptable response.
Instead, parents are encouraged to explore alternative strategies, such as:
- Setting firm boundaries,
- Engaging in family counseling or therapy,
- Using positive discipline methods,
- Seeking help from their community or cultural support services; etc.
A Call for Compassion and Awareness
Our client, like many parents, didn’t set out to break the law. They had no prior criminal record and have conducted themselves with dignity throughout their career in their home country. Their actions were rooted in love, a desire to raise a respectful child, and frustration from their child’s lack of remorse. Because they used a belt, they crossed a legal and moral line that the justice system could not ignore.
As legal professionals, caregivers, and community members, we must educate Canadian families, starting with newcomers and those from diverse cultural backgrounds, on Canada’s discipline laws.
If you’re struggling to find lawful and effective ways to discipline your child, reach out to us, to local support services, counselors, and legal clinics. You are not alone and there is help.
We are also here to provide you with quality services when you encounter legal issues within the criminal justice system.
The story is shared with the permission of the parties involved.
Author:
Omolara ‘Bisi Olabanji
Bisi is a Saskatoon-based lawyer with a global footprint. She has worked extensively in the criminal justice and intellectual property rights sectors across multiple jurisdictions, partnering with international agencies to strengthen Africa’s justice systems and safeguard intellectual property rights.
As Legal Advisor with the U.S. Department of Justice, she worked out of the U.S.Embassy in Nigeria to support regional technical assistance funded by the U.S. Department of State in tackling transnational crimes, fostering innovation, and advancing the rule of law.
At the Firm, she brings decades of diverse legal expertise to her current practice spanning family, criminal, wills and estates, property, and immigration law. She is committed to integrating out-of-court strategies to promote constructive, client-centered approaches to conflict resolution.
She is the Section Chair of Internationally Trained Lawyers for the Canadian Bar Association, Saskatchewan Branch. Her leadership has been recognized in various other capacities, and she helps clients navigate legal challenges with skill and compassion.
References:
