Section 43 Case Study

Introduction
Contained within the Criminal Code of Canada, is the ever controversial Section 43, which provides persons in positions of authority with the right to use justifiable and reasonable force by way of correction towards a child or pupil. The section reads that:

“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 circumstances.”

In the case in question, Griffin Grimbly, a 12-year old child complained that his father had beat him using a length of clothesline. The father was arrested and charged with assault by police. He entered a plea of
The court clarified that,“by way of correction” does not pardon behaviours which are invoked by anger or frustration, must be reasoned in nature, and must intent to “restrain, control, or express symbolic disapproval” of the child’s behaviour. The court also ruled that the child must have the capacity to benefit or learn from the correction, creating further restrictions in that a child receiving such force from a parent must be over the age of two, or are incapable of understanding the gravity of the situation due to an intellectual or physical disability. Furthermore, the court also took the step to clarify the term, “reasonable under the circumstances” to mean that the force applied may not be used to harm or degrade the child, nor does the gravity of the misbehaviour of the child constitute justification for more intensive force to be applied by the parent. The reasonableness aspect of the interpretation applied by the Supreme Court also held that the force may not be applied using objects used to inflict injury or cause harm such as rulers or belts, and that any force applied to the head is unjustifiable. In applying the ratio created through the newly created interpretations of the law, the Supreme Court dismissed the
The Supreme Court, in their judgement only specified the use of belts and rulers, however did not state that the term objects were limited to solely the use of belts and rules. In the trial of R. v. M. (R. v. M. (C.A.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500), the court explained in paragraphs eight and nine, that the children of M., were physically beaten in beatings which “normally involved the use of open hands, fists and feet” and on more serious occasions “included the use of weapons such as steel-toed work booths, knives, belts, broomsticks, electrical cords, tools, and a toaster.” Without the ability of the children of M. to defend themselves against the weapons used by their father, the court, despite Section 43, found that M. had committed assault on his children, and sentenced him to prison. The courts use of the words normal and serious in their judgement identifies that the use of objects aside from hands, fists, and feet constitutes an abnormality in corporal punishment, and is thus not protected by Section 43 of the Criminal Code. Applying the same ratio to the use of clothesline in the case of Griffin Grimbly, I also answer the second question in the