Correction of Teenagers by Force

Last Thursday's Superior Court decision in R. v. Swan, 2008 CanLII 10389 considered the application of s. 43 of the Criminal Code, to teenagers.

SECTION 43: Correction of child by force:

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.

The accused, relied upon s. 43 in defence of a charge of assault claiming parental use of reasonable force to correct his child. There was little doubt that the accused's child, then 15, was 'out of control'. She was using drugs and was involved with a boyfriend who was violent, used drugs and urged her to kill her family.

The facts leading to the charge were that the daughter was physically forced to not attend a party with the boyfriend. No corporal punishment was involved.

The Court held correction by force defence applied and was not limited to young children. Teenagers, in the appropriate circumstances, can be corrected by force.

The Court held:

[28] The trial judge was correct that the summary of Canadian Foundations in Martin's Criminal Code includes the comment by the Supreme Court of Canada that s. 43 does not apply to teenagers, but a review of the case shows those comments were made in the context of a review of corporal punishment. The majority of the court concluded that corporal punishment of teenagers, particularly with the use of objects or blows or slaps to the head, is prohibited because it does not have corrective value. It did not hold, as the trial judge seems to have concluded, that any non-consensual application of force by a parent against a teenager is precluded in all circumstances. To exclude all force against teenagers takes the comments of the court out of context. The statute does not include an age restriction. Canadian Foundations did not prohibit the application of s. 43 in circumstances of restraint or control of an unruly teen. I find that the trial judge erred in concluding that s. 43 of the Criminal Code was not an available defence for consideration in the circumstances. He placed too narrow an interpretation on the meaning of correction and the child's ability to benefit from it. The purpose of the correction was to return her to a safe environment. In these extreme circumstances, the Appellant's use of force as corrective restraint was reasonable. I find the father was justified in his use of force to correct his teenage daughter, M.