Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law      Appellant

v.

Attorney General in Right of Canada      Respondent

and

Focus on the Family (Canada) Association, Canada Family
Action Coalition, Home School Legal Defence Association
of Canada and REAL Women of Canada, together forming the
Coalition for Family Autonomy, Canadian Teachers' Federation,
Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, Commission des
droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, on its own
behalf and on behalf of Conseil canadien des organismes
provinciaux de dfense des droits des enfants et des jeunes,
and Child Welfare League of Canada      Interveners

 

Indexed as: Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General)

Neutral citation: 2004 SCC 4.

File No.: 29113.

2003: June 6; 2004: January 30.

Present: McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

     Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Fundamental justice -- Vagueness -- Corporal punishment -- Section 43 of Criminal Code justifying use of reasonable force by parents and teachers by way of correction of child or pupil -- Whether provision unconstitutionally vague or overbroad -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 -- Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 43.

     Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Cruel and unusual punishment -- Corporal punishment -- Section 43 of Criminal Code justifying use of reasonable force by parents and teachers by way of correction of child or pupil -- Whether provision infringes right not to be subject to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 12 -- Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 43.

     Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Equality rights -- Children -- Corporal punishment -- Section 43 of Criminal Code justifying use of reasonable force by parents and teachers by way of correction of child or pupil -- Whether provision infringes right to equality -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 15(1) -- Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 43.

     Section 43 of the Criminal Code justifies the reasonable use of force by way of correction by parents and teachers against children in their care. The appellant sought a declaration that s. 43 violates ss. 7, 12 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The trial judge and the Court of Appeal rejected the appellant's contentions and refused to issue the declaration requested.

     Held (Binnie J. dissenting in part; Arbour and Deschamps JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be dismissed.

     Per McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and LeBel JJ.: Section 43 of the Criminal Code does not offend s. 7 of the Charter. While s. 43 adversely affects children's security of the person, it does not offend a principle of fundamental justice. First, s. 43 provides adequate procedural safeguards to protect this interest, since the child's interests are represented at trial by the Crown. Second, it is not a principle of fundamental justice that laws affecting children must be in their best interests. Thirdly, s. 43, properly construed, is not unduly vague or overbroad; it sets real boundaries and delineates a risk zone for criminal sanction and avoids discretionary law enforcement. The force must have been intended to be for educative or corrective purposes, relating to restraining, controlling or expressing disapproval of the actual behaviour of a child capable of benefiting from the correction. While the words "reasonable under the circumstances" on their face are broad, implicit limitations add precision. Section 43 does not extend to an application of force that results in harm or the prospect of harm. Determining what is "reasonable under the circumstances" in the case of child discipline is assisted by Canada's international treaty obligations, the circumstances in which the discipline occurs, social consensus, expert evidence and judicial interpretation. 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.

     The conduct permitted by s. 43 does not involve "cruel and unusual" treatment or punishment by the state and therefore does not offend s. 12 of the Charter. Section 43 permits only corrective force that is reasonable. Conduct cannot be at once both reasonable and an outrage to standards of decency.

     Section 43 does not discriminate contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter. A reasonable person acting on behalf of a child, apprised of the harms of criminalization that s. 43 avoids, the presence of other governmental initiatives to reduce the use of corporal punishment, and the fact that abusive and harmful conduct is still prohibited by the criminal law, would not conclude that the child's dignity has been offended in the manner contemplated by s. 15(1). While children need a safe environment, they also depend on parents and teachers for guidance and discipline, to protect them from harm and to promote their healthy development within society. Section 43 is Parliament's attempt to accommodate both of these needs. It provides parents and teachers with the ability to carry out the reasonable education of the child without the threat of sanction by the criminal law. Without s. 43, Canada's broad assault law would criminalize force falling far short of what we think of as corporal punishment. The decision not to criminalize such conduct is not grounded in devaluation of the child, but in a concern that to do so risks ruining lives and breaking up families -- a burden that in large part would be borne by children and outweigh any benefit derived from applying the criminal process.

     Per Binnie J. (dissenting in part): By denying children the protection of the criminal law against the infliction of physical force that would be criminal assault if used against an adult, s. 43 of the Criminal Code infringes children's equality rights guaranteed by s. 15(1) of the Charter. To deny protection against physical force to children at the hands of their parents and teachers is not only disrespectful of a child's dignity but turns the child, for the purpose of the Criminal Code, into a second class citizen. Such marginalization is destructive of dignity from any perspective, including that of a child. Protection of physical integrity against the use of unlawful force is a fundamental value that is applicable to all.

     The majority in this case largely dismisses the s. 15(1) challenge because of the alleged correspondence between the actual needs and circumstances of children and the diminished protection they enjoy under s. 43. In the majority view, the objective of substantive equality (as distinguished from formal equality) calls for the differential treatment of children. Here, however, the "correspondence" factor is used as a sort of Trojan horse to bring into s. 15(1) matters that are more properly regarded as "reasonable limits . . . demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" (s. 1). Section 43 protects parents and teachers, not children. The justification for their immunity should be dealt with under s. 1.

     The use of force against a child, which in the absence of s. 43 would result in a criminal conviction, cannot be said to "correspond" to a child's "needs, capacities and circumstances" from the vantage point of a reasonable person acting on behalf of a child who seriously considers and values the child's views and developmental needs. Furthermore, the use of the "correspondence" factor to deny equality relief to children in this case is premised on the view that the state has good reason for treating children differently because of the role and importance of family life in our society. However, to proceed in this way just incorporates the "legitimate objective" element from the s. 1 Oakes test into s. 15, while incidentally switching the onus to the rights claimant to show the legislative objective is not legitimate, and relieving the government of the onus of demonstrating proportionality, including minimal impairment. This denies children the protection of their right to equal treatment.
The infringement of children's equality rights is saved by s. 1 of the Charter in relation to parents and persons standing in the place of parents. The objective of s. 43 of limiting the intrusion of the Criminal Code into family life is pressing and substantial and providing a defence to a criminal prosecution in the circumstances stated in s. 43 is rationally connected to that objective. As to minimal impairment, the wording of s. 43 not only permits calibration of the immunity to different circumstances and children of different ages, but it allows for adjustment over time. The proportionality requirements are met by Parliament's limitation of the s. 43 defence to circumstances where: (i) the force is for corrective purposes, and (ii) the measure of force is shown to be reasonable in the circumstances. What is reasonable in relation to achievement of the legitimate legislative objective will not, by definition, be disproportionate to such achievement. Moreover, the salutary effects of s. 43 exceed its potential deleterious effects when one considers that the assault provisions of the Criminal Code are just a part, and perhaps a less important part, of the overall protections afforded to children by child welfare legislation. To deny children the ability to have their parents successfully prosecuted for reasonable corrective force under the Criminal Code does not leave them without effective recourse. It just helps to keep the family out of the criminal courts. Section 43 in relation to parents is justified on this basis.

     The extension of s. 43 protection to teachers has not been justified under the s. 1 test. Parents and teachers play very different roles in a child's life and there is no reason why they should be treated on the same legal plane for the purposes of the Criminal Code. The logic for keeping criminal sanctions out of the schools is much less compelling than for keeping them out of the home. While order in the schools is a legitimate objective, giving non-family members an immunity for the criminal assault of children "by way of correction" is not a reasonable or proportionate legislative response to that problem. Section 43 does not minimally impair the child's equality right, and is not a proportionate response to the problem of order in the schools.

     Per Arbour J. (dissenting): Section 43 of the Criminal Code can only be restrictively interpreted if the law, as it stands, offends the Constitution and must therefore be curtailed. Absent such constitutional restraints, it is neither the historic nor the proper role of courts to enlarge criminal responsibility by limiting defences enacted by Parliament. The reading down of a statutory defence amounts to an abandonment by the courts of their proper role in the criminal process. Nothing in the words of s. 43, properly construed, suggests that Parliament intended that some conduct be excluded at the outset from the scope of its protection. This is the law as we must take it in order to assess its constitutionality. To essentially rewrite it before validating its constitutionality is to hide the constitutional imperative.

     Section 43 of the Criminal Code infringes the rights of children under s. 7 of the Charter. The phrase "reasonable under the circumstances" in s. 43 violates children's security of the person interest and the deprivation is not in accordance with the relevant principle of fundamental justice, in that it is unconstitutionally vague. A vague law violates the principles of fundamental justice because it does not provide "fair warning" to individuals as to the legality of their actions and because it increases the amount of discretion given to law enforcement officials in their application of the law, which may lead to arbitrary enforcement. There is no need to speculate about whether s. 43 is capable, in theory, of circumscribing an acceptable level of debate about the scope of its application. Canadian courts have been unable to articulate a legal framework for s. 43 despite attempts to establish guidelines and have been at a loss to appreciate the "reasonableness" referred to by Parliament. "Reasonableness" with respect to s. 43 is linked to public policy issues and one's own sense of parental authority and always entails an element of subjectivity. Conceptions of what is "reasonable" in terms of the discipline of children, whether physical or otherwise, vary widely, and often engage cultural and religious beliefs as well as political and ethical ones. While it may work well in other contexts, in this one the term "reasonable force" has proven not to be a workable standard and the lack of clarity is particularly problematic here because the rights of children are engaged. The restrictions put forth by the majority with respect to the scope of the defence in s. 43 have not emerged from the existing case law. These restrictions are far from self-evident and would not have been anticipated by many parents, teachers or enforcement officials. Attempts at judicial interpretation which would structure the discretion in s. 43 have failed to provide coherent or cogent guidelines that would meet the standard of notice and specificity generally required in the criminal law.

     Since s. 43 is unconstitutionally vague, it cannot pass the "prescribed by law" requirement in s. 1 of the Charter or the minimal impairment stage of the Oakes test and accordingly cannot be saved under that section. Striking down the provision is the most appropriate remedy, as Parliament is best equipped to reconsider this vague and controversial provision. Striking down s. 43 will not expose parents and persons standing in the place of parents to the blunt instrument of the criminal law for every minor instance of technical assault. The common law defences of necessity and de minimis adequately protect parents and teachers from excusable and/or trivial conduct. The defence of necessity rests upon a realistic assessment of human weaknesses and recognizes that there are emergency situations where the law does not hold people accountable if the ordinary human instincts overwhelmingly impel disobedience in the pursuit of self-preservation or the preservation of others. Because the s. 43 defence only protects parents who apply force for corrective purposes, the common law may have to be resorted to in any event in situations where parents forcibly restrain children incapable of learning, to ensure the child's safety, for example. With respect to the common law defence of de minimis, an appropriate expansion in the use of that defence would assist in ensuring that trivial, technical violations of the assault provisions of the Criminal Code do not attract criminal sanctions.

     Per Deschamps J. (dissenting): The ordinary and contextual meaning of s. 43 cannot bear the restricted interpretation proposed by the majority. Section 43 applies to and justifies an extensive range of conduct, including serious uses of force against children. There was agreement with Arbour J. that the body of case law applying s. 43 is evidence of its broad parameters and wide scope. Where, as here, the text of the provision does not support a severely restricted scope of conduct that would avoid constitutional disfavour, the Court cannot read the section down to create a constitutionally valid provision. It is the duty of the Court to determine the intent of the legislator by looking at the text, context and purpose of the provision.

     Section 43 infringes the equality guarantees of children under s. 15(1) of the Charter. On its face, as well as in its result, s. 43 creates a distinction between children and others which is based on the enumerated ground of age. Moreover, the distinction or differential treatment under s. 43 constitutes discrimination. The government's explicit choice not to criminalize some assaults against children violates their dignity. First, there is clearly a significant interest at stake because the withdrawal of the protection of the criminal law for incursions on one's physical integrity would lead the reasonable claimant to believe that her or his dignity is being harmed. Second, children as a group face pre-existing disadvantage in our society and have been recognized as a vulnerable group time and again by legislatures and courts. Third, the proposed ameliorative purposes or effects factor does not apply and has only a neutral impact on the analysis. Lastly, s. 43 perpetuates the notion of children as property rather than human beings and sends the message that their bodily integrity and physical security is to be sacrificed to the will of their parents, however misguided. Far from corresponding to the actual needs and circumstances of children, s. 43 compounds the pre-existing disadvantage of children as a vulnerable and often-powerless group whose access to legal redress is already restricted.

     The infringement of s. 15(1) is not justified as a reasonable limit under s. 1 of the Charter. The legislative objective behind s. 43 of recognizing that parents and teachers require reasonable latitude in carrying out the responsibility imposed by law to provide for their children, to nurture them, and to educate them is pressing and substantial. As well, there does appear to be a rational connection between the objective and limiting the application of the criminal law in the parent-child or teacher-pupil relationship. However, it is clear that less intrusive means were available that would have been more appropriately tailored to the objective. Section 43 could have been defined in such a way as to be limited only to very minor applications of force rather than being broad enough to capture more serious assaults on a child's body. It could also have been better tailored in terms of those to whom it applies, those whom it protects, and the scope of conduct it justifies. A consideration of the proportionality between the salutary and deleterious effects of the application of s. 43 also supports the conclusion that the proportionality part of the Oakes test has not been met. The deleterious effects impact upon such a core right of children as a vulnerable group that the salutary effects must be extremely compelling to be proportional. The discrimination represented by s. 43 produces the most drastic effect in sending the message that children, as a group, are less worthy of protection of their bodies than anyone else.

     The striking down of s. 43 is the only appropriate remedy in this case and s. 43 should be severed from the rest of the Criminal Code. It does not measure up to Charter standards and, thus, must cede to the supremacy of the Constitution to the extent of any inconsistency.

     The judgment of McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and LeBel JJ. was delivered by

     1THE CHIEF JUSTICE -- The issue in this case is the constitutionality of Parliament's decision to carve out a sphere within which children's parents and teachers may use minor corrective force in some circumstances without facing criminal sanction. The assault provision of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 265, prohibits intentional, non-consensual application of force to another. Section 43 of the Criminal Code excludes from this crime reasonable physical correction of children by their parents and teachers. It provides:

     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 Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law (the "Foundation") seeks a declaration that this exemption from criminal sanction: (1) violates s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it fails to give procedural protections to children, does not further the best interests of the child, and is both overbroad and vague; (2) violates s. 12 of the Charter because it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment or treatment; and (3) violates s. 15(1) of the Charter because it denies children the legal protection against assaults that is accorded to adults.

2      The trial judge and the Court of Appeal rejected the Foundation's contentions and refused to issue the declaration requested. Like them, I conclude that the exemption from criminal sanction for corrective force that is "reasonable under the circumstances" does not offend the Charter. I say this, having carefully considered the contrary view of my colleague, Arbour J., that the defence of reasonable correction offered by s. 43 is so vague that it must be struck down as unconstitutional, leaving parents who apply corrective force to children to the mercy of the defences of necessity and "de minimis". I am satisfied that the substantial social consensus on what is reasonable correction, supported by comprehensive and consistent expert evidence on what is reasonable presented in this appeal, gives clear content to s. 43. I am also satisfied, with due respect to contrary views, that exempting parents and teachers from criminal sanction for reasonable correction does not violate children's equality rights. In the end, I am satisfied that this section provides a workable, constitutional standard that protects both children and parents.

3     Section 7 of the Charter is breached by state action depriving someone of life, liberty, or security of the person contrary to a principle of fundamental justice. The burden is on the applicant to prove both the deprivation and the breach of fundamental justice. In this case the Crown concedes that s. 43 adversely affects children's security of the person, fulfilling the first requirement.

4     This leaves the question of whether s. 43 offends a principle of fundamental justice. The Foundation argues that three such principles have been breached: (1) the principle that the child must be afforded independent procedural rights; (2) the principle that legislation affecting children must be in their best interests; and (3) the principle that criminal legislation must not be vague or overbroad. I will consider each in turn.

5     It is a principle of fundamental justice that accused persons must be accorded adequate procedural safeguards in the criminal process. By analogy, the Foundation argues that it is a principle of fundamental justice that innocent children who are alleged to have been subjected to force exempted from criminal sanction by s. 43 of the Criminal Code have a similar right to due process in the representation of their interests at trial. Section 43 fails to accord such process, it is argued, and therefore breaches s. 7 of the Charter. The implication is that for s. 43 to be constitutional, it would be necessary to provide for separate representation of the child's interests.

6     Thus far, jurisprudence has not recognized procedural rights for the alleged victims of an offence. However, I need not consider that issue. Even on the assumption that alleged child victims are constitutionally entitled to procedural safeguards, the Foundation's argument fails because s. 43 provides adequate procedural safeguards to protect this interest. The child's interests are represented at trial by the Crown. The Crown's decision to prosecute and its conduct of the prosecution will necessarily reflect society's concern for the physical and mental security of the child. There is no reason to suppose that, as in other offences involving children as victims or witnesses, the Crown will not discharge that duty properly. Nor is there any reason to conclude on the arguments before us that providing separate representation for the child is either necessary or useful. I conclude that no failure of procedural safeguards has been established.

7     The Foundation argues that it is a principle of fundamental justice that laws affecting children must be in their best interests, and that s. 43's exemption of reasonable corrective force from criminal sanction is not in the best interests of the child. Therefore, it argues, s. 43 violates s. 7 of the Charter. I disagree. While "the best interests of the child" is a recognized legal principle, this legal principle is not a principle of fundamental justice.

8     Jurisprudence on s. 7 has established that a "principle of fundamental justice" must fulfill three criteria: R. v. Malmo-Levine, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571, 2003 SCC 74, at para. 113. First, it must be a legal principle. This serves two purposes. First, it "provides meaningful content for the s. 7 guarantee"; second, it avoids the "adjudication of policy matters": Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486, at p. 503. Second, there must be sufficient consensus that the alleged principle is "vital or fundamental to our societal notion of justice": Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519, at p. 590. The principles of fundamental justice are the shared assumptions upon which our system of justice is grounded. They find their meaning in the cases and traditions that have long detailed the basic norms for how the state deals with its citizens. Society views them as essential to the administration of justice. Third, the alleged principle must be capable of being identified with precision and applied to situations in a manner that yields predictable results. Examples of principles of fundamental justice that meet all three requirements include the need for a guilty mind and for reasonably clear laws.

9     The "best interests of the child" is a legal principle, thus meeting the first requirement. A legal principle contrasts with what Lamer J. (as he then was) referred to as "the realm of general public policy" (Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, supra, at p. 503), and Sopinka J. referred to as "broad" and "vague generalizations about what our society considers to be ethical or moral" (Rodriguez, supra, at p. 591), the use of which would transform s. 7 into a vehicle for policy adjudication. The "best interests of the child" is an established legal principle in international and domestic law. Canada is a party to international conventions that treat "the best interests of the child" as a legal principle: see the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Can. T.S. 1992 No. 3, Art. 3(1), and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Can. T.S. 1982 No. 31, Arts. 5(b) and 16(1)(d). Many Canadian statutes explicitly name the "best interests of the child" as a legal consideration: see, for example, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, ss. 25, 28, 60, 67, 68 and 69; Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1, ss. 25(8), 27(1), 30(3) and (4); Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), ss. 16(8), (10), 17(5) and (9). Family law statutes are saturated with references to the "best interests of the child" as a legal principle of paramount importance: though not an exhaustive list, examples include: Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 128, s. 24(1); Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 1(a); Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 19(a). Clearly, the "best interests of the child" has achieved the status of a legal principle; the first requirement is met.

10     However, the "best interests of the child" fails to meet the second criterion for a principle of fundamental justice: consensus that the principle is vital or fundamental to our societal notion of justice. The "best interests of the child" is widely supported in legislation and social policy, and is an important factor for consideration in many contexts. It is not, however, a foundational requirement for the dispensation of justice. Article 3(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child describes it as "a primary consideration" rather than "the primary consideration" (emphasis added). Drawing on this wording, L'Heureux-Dub J. noted in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, at para. 75:

     [T]he decision-maker should consider children's best interests as an important factor, give them substantial weight, and be alert, alive and sensitive to them. That is not to say that children's best interests must always outweigh other considerations, or that there will not be other reasons for denying an H & C claim even when children's interests are given this consideration.

     It follows that the legal principle of the "best interests of the child" may be subordinated to other concerns in appropriate contexts. For example, a person convicted of a crime may be sentenced to prison even where it may not be in his or her child's best interests. Society does not always deem it essential that the "best interests of the child" trump all other concerns in the administration of justice. The "best interests of the child", while an important legal principle and a factor for consideration in many contexts, is not vital or fundamental to our societal notion of justice, and hence is not a principle of fundamental justice.

11     The third requirement is that the alleged principle of fundamental justice be "capable of being identified with some precision" (Rodriguez, supra, at p. 591) and provide a justiciable standard. Here, too, the "best interests of the child" falls short. It functions as a factor considered along with others. Its application is inevitably highly contextual and subject to dispute; reasonable people may well disagree about the result that its application will yield, particularly in areas of the law where it is one consideration among many, such as the criminal justice system. It does not function as a principle of fundamental justice setting out our minimum requirements for the dispensation of justice.

12     To conclude, "the best interests of the child" is a legal principle that carries great power in many contexts. However, it is not a principle of fundamental justice.

13     The Foundation argues that s. 43 is unconstitutional because first, it does not give sufficient notice as to what conduct is prohibited; and second, it fails to constrain discretion in enforcement. The concept of what is "reasonable under the circumstances" is simply too vague, it is argued, to pass muster as a criminal provision.

14     Applying the legal requirements for precision in a criminal statute to s. 43, I conclude that s. 43, properly construed, is not unduly vague.

15     A law is unconstitutionally vague if it "does not provide an adequate basis for legal debate" and "analysis"; "does not sufficiently delineate any area of risk"; or "is not intelligible". The law must offer a "grasp to the judiciary": R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606, at pp. 639-40. Certainty is not required.
As Gonthier J. pointed out in Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical, supra, at pp. 638-39,

     conduct is guided by approximation. The process of approximation sometimes results in quite a narrow set of options, sometimes in a broader one. Legal dispositions therefore delineate a risk zone, and cannot hope to do more, unless they are directed at individual instances. [Emphasis added.]

16     A law must set an intelligible standard both for the citizens it governs and the officials who must enforce it. The two are interconnected. A vague law prevents the citizen from realizing when he or she is entering an area of risk for criminal sanction. It similarly makes it difficult for law enforcement officers and judges to determine whether a crime has been committed. This invokes the further concern of putting too much discretion in the hands of law enforcement officials, and violates the precept that individuals should be governed by the rule of law, not the rule of persons. The doctrine of vagueness is directed generally at the evil of leaving "basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application": Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972), at p. 109.

18     It follows that s. 43 of the Criminal Code will satisfy the constitutional requirement for precision if it delineates a risk zone for criminal sanction. This achieves the essential task of providing general guidance for citizens and law enforcement officers.

19     The purpose of s. 43 is to delineate a sphere of non-criminal conduct within the larger realm of common assault. It must, as we have seen, do this in a way that permits people to know when they are entering a zone of risk of criminal sanction and that avoids ad hoc discretionary decision making by law enforcement officials. People must be able to assess when conduct approaches the boundaries of the sphere that s. 43 provides.

20     To ascertain whether s. 43 meets these requirements, we must consider its words and court decisions interpreting those words. The words of the statute must be considered in context, in their grammatical and ordinary sense, and with a view to the legislative scheme's purpose and the intention of Parliament: Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, at para. 21; Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559, 2002 SCC 42, at para. 26. Since s. 43 withdraws the protection of the criminal law in certain circumstances, it should be strictly construed: see Ogg-Moss v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 173, at p. 183.

21     Section 43 delineates who may access its sphere with considerable precision. The terms "schoolteacher" and "parent" are clear. The phrase "person standing in the place of a parent" has been held by the courts to indicate an individual who has assumed "all the obligations of parenthood": Ogg-Moss, supra, at p. 190 (emphasis in original). These terms present no difficulty.

22     Section 43 identifies less precisely what conduct falls within its sphere. It defines this conduct in two ways. The first is by the requirement that the force be "by way of correction". The second is by the requirement that the force be "reasonable under the circumstances". The question is whether, taken together and construed in accordance with governing principles, these phrases provide sufficient precision to delineate the zone of risk and avoid discretionary law enforcement.

23     I turn first to the requirement that the force be "by way of correction". These words, considered in conjunction with the cases, yield two limitations on the content of the protected sphere of conduct.

24     First, the person applying the force must have intended it to be for educative or corrective purposes: Ogg-Moss, supra, at p. 193. Accordingly, s. 43 cannot exculpate outbursts of violence against a child motivated by anger or animated by frustration. It admits into its sphere of immunity only sober, reasoned uses of force that address the actual behaviour of the child and are designed to restrain, control or express some symbolic disapproval of his or her behaviour. The purpose of the force must always be the education or discipline of the child: Ogg-Moss, supra, at p. 193.

25     Second, the child must be capable of benefiting from the correction. This requires the capacity to learn and the possibility of successful correction. Force against children under two cannot be corrective, since on the evidence they are incapable of understanding why they are hit (trial decision (2000), 49 O.R. (3d) 662, at para. 17). A child may also be incapable of learning from the application of force because of disability or some other contextual factor. In these cases, force will not be "corrective" and will not fall within the sphere of immunity provided by s. 43.

26     The second requirement of s. 43 is that the force be "reasonable under the circumstances". The Foundation argues that this term fails to sufficiently delineate the area of risk and constitutes an invitation to discretionary ad hoc law enforcement. It argues that police officers, prosecutors and judges too often assess the reasonableness of corrective force by reference to their personal experiences and beliefs, rendering enforcement of s. 43 arbitrary and subjective. In support, it points to the decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal in R. v. K. (M.) (1992), 74 C.C.C. (3d) 108, in which, at p. 109, O'Sullivan J.A. stated that "[t]he discipline administered to the boy in question in these proceedings [a kick to the rear] was mild indeed compared to the discipline I received in my home".

27     Against this argument, the law has long used reasonableness to delineate areas of risk, without incurring the dangers of vagueness. The law of negligence, which has blossomed in recent decades to govern private actions in nearly all spheres of human activity, is founded upon the presumption that individuals are capable of governing their conduct in accordance with the standard of what is "reasonable". But reasonableness as a guide to conduct is not confined to the law of negligence. The criminal law also relies on it. The Criminal Code expects that police officers will know what constitutes "reasonable grounds" for believing that an offence has been committed, such that an arrest can be made (s. 495); that an individual will know what constitutes "reasonable steps" to obtain consent to sexual contact (s. 273.2(b)); and that surgeons, in order to be exempted from criminal liability, will judge whether performing an operation is "reasonable" in "all the circumstances of the case" (s. 45). These are merely a few examples; the criminal law is thick with the notion of "reasonableness".

28     The reality is that the term "reasonable" gives varying degrees of guidance, depending upon the statutory and factual context. It does not insulate a law against a charge of vagueness. Nor, however, does it automatically mean that a law is void for vagueness. In each case, the question is whether the term, considered in light of principles of statutory interpretation and decided cases, delineates an area of risk and avoids the danger of arbitrary ad hoc law enforcement.

29     Is s. 43's reliance on reasonableness, considered in this way, unconstitutionally vague? Does it indicate what conduct risks criminal sanction and provide a principled basis for enforcement? While the words on their face are broad, a number of implicit limitations add precision.

30     The first limitation arises from the behaviour for which s. 43 provides an exemption, simple non-consensual application of force. Section 43 does not exempt from criminal sanction conduct that causes harm or raises a reasonable prospect of harm. It can be invoked only in cases of non-consensual application of force that results neither in harm nor in the prospect of bodily harm. This limits its operation to the mildest forms of assault. People must know that if their conduct raises an apprehension of bodily harm they cannot rely on s. 43. Similarly, police officers and judges must know that the defence cannot be raised in such circumstances.

31     Within this limited area of application, further precision on what is reasonable under the circumstances may be derived from international treaty obligations. Statutes should be construed to comply with Canada's international obligations: Ordon Estate v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437, at para. 137. Canada's international commitments confirm that physical correction that either harms or degrades a child is unreasonable.

32     Canada is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 5 of the Convention requires state parties to

33     Neither the Convention on the Rights of the Child nor the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights explicitly require state parties to ban all corporal punishment of children. In the process of monitoring compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, however, the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations has expressed the view that corporal punishment of children in schools engages Article 7's prohibition of degrading treatment or punishment: see for example, Report of the Human Rights Committee, vol. I, UN GAOR, Fiftieth Session, Supp. No. 40 (A/50/40) (1995), at paras. 426 and 434; Report of the Human Rights Committee, vol. I, UN GAOR, Fifty-fourth Session, Supp. No. 40 (A/54/40) (1999), at para. 358; Report of the Human Rights Committee, vol. I, UN GAOR, Fifty-fifth Session, Supp. No. 40 (A/55/40) (2000), at paras. 306 and 429. The Committee has not expressed a similar opinion regarding parental use of mild corporal punishment.

34     Section 43's ambit is further defined by the direction to consider the circumstances under which corrective force is used. National and international precedents have set out factors to be considered. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 213 U.N.T.S. 221, forbids inhuman and degrading treatment. The European Court of Human Rights, in determining whether parental treatment of a child was severe enough to fall within the scope of Article 3, held that assessment must take account of "all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment, its duration, its physical and mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim": Eur. Court H.R., A. v. United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI, p. 2699. These factors properly focus on the prospective effect of the corrective force upon the child, as required by s. 43.

35     By contrast, it is improper to retrospectively focus on the gravity of a child's wrongdoing, which invites a punitive rather than corrective focus. "[T]he nature of the offence calling for correction", an additional factor suggested in R. v. Dupperon (1984), 16 C.C.C. (3d) 453 (Sask. C.A.), at p. 460, is thus not a relevant contextual consideration. The focus under s. 43 is on the correction of the child, not on the gravity of the precipitating event. Obviously, force employed in the absence of any behaviour requiring correction by definition cannot be corrective.

36     Determining what is "reasonable under the circumstances" in the case of child discipline is also assisted by social consensus and expert evidence on what constitutes reasonable corrective discipline. The criminal law often uses the concept of reasonableness to accommodate evolving mores and avoid successive "fine-tuning" amendments. It is implicit in this technique that current social consensus on what is reasonable may be considered. It is wrong for caregivers or judges to apply their own subjective notions of what is reasonable; s. 43 demands an objective appraisal based on current learning and consensus. Substantial consensus, particularly when supported by expert evidence, can provide guidance and reduce the danger of arbitrary, subjective decision making.

37     Based on the evidence currently before the Court, there are significant areas of agreement among the experts on both sides of the issue (trial decision, at para. 17). 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.

38     Contemporary social consensus is that, while teachers may sometimes use corrective force to remove children from classrooms or secure compliance with instructions, the use of corporal punishment by teachers is not acceptable. Many school boards forbid the use of corporal punishment, and some provinces and territories have legislatively prohibited its use by teachers: see, e.g., Schools Act, 1997, S.N.L. 1997, c. S-12.2, s. 42; School Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 412, s. 76(3); Education Act, S.N.B. 1997, c. E-1.12, s. 23; School Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. S-2.1, s. 73; Education Act, S.N.W.T. 1995, c. 28, s. 34(3); Education Act, S.Y. 1989-90, c. 25, s. 36. This consensus is consistent with Canada's international obligations, given the findings of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations noted above. Section 43 will protect a teacher who uses reasonable, corrective force to restrain or remove a child in appropriate circumstances. Substantial societal consensus, supported by expert evidence and Canada's treaty obligations, indicates that corporal punishment by teachers is unreasonable.

39     Finally, judicial interpretation may assist in defining "reasonable under the circumstances" under s. 43. It must be conceded at the outset that judicial decisions on s. 43 in the past have sometimes been unclear and inconsistent, sending a muddled message as to what is and is not permitted. In many cases discussed by Arbour J., judges failed to acknowledge the evolutive nature of the standard of reasonableness, and gave undue authority to outdated conceptions of reasonable correction. On occasion, judges erroneously applied their own subjective views on what constitutes reasonable discipline -- views as varied as different judges' backgrounds. In addition, charges of assaultive discipline were seldom viewed as sufficiently serious to merit in-depth research and expert evidence or the appeals which might have permitted a unified national standard to emerge. However, "[t]he fact that a particular legislative term is open to varying interpretations by the courts is not fatal": Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Man.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123, at p. 1157. This case, and those that build on it, may permit a more uniform approach to "reasonable under the circumstances" than has prevailed in the past. Again, the issue is not whether s. 43 has provided enough guidance in the past, but whether it expresses a standard that can be given a core meaning in tune with contemporary consensus.

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.

41     The fact that borderline cases may be anticipated is not fatal. As Gonthier J. stated in Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical, supra, at p. 639, "it is inherent to our legal system that some conduct will fall along the boundaries of the area of risk; no definite prediction can then be made. Guidance, not direction, of conduct is a more realistic objective".

42     Section 43 achieves this objective. It sets real boundaries and delineates a risk zone for criminal sanction. The prudent parent or teacher will refrain from conduct that approaches those boundaries, while law enforcement officers and judges will proceed with them in mind. It does not violate the principle of fundamental justice that laws must not be vague or arbitrary.

43     My colleague, Arbour J., by contrast, takes the view that s. 43 is unconstitutionally vague, a point of view also expressed by Deschamps J. Arbour J. argues first that the foregoing analysis amounts to an impermissible reading down of s. 43. This contention is answered by the evidence in this case, which established a solid core of meaning for s. 43; to construe terms like "reasonable under the circumstances" by reference to evidence and argument is a common and accepted function of courts interpreting the criminal law. To interpret "reasonable" in light of the evidence is not judicial amendment, but judicial interpretation. It is a common practice, given the number of criminal offences conditioned by the term "reasonable". If "it is the function of the appellate courts to rein in overly elastic interpretations" (Binnie J., at para. 122), it is equally their function to define the scope of criminal defences.

44     Arbour J. also argues that unconstitutional vagueness is established by the fact that courts in the past have applied s. 43 inconsistently. Again, the inference does not follow. Vagueness is not argued on the basis of whether a provision has been interpreted consistently in the past, but whether it is capable of providing guidance for the future. Inconsistent and erroneous applications are not uncommon in criminal law, where many provisions admit of difficulty; we do not say that this makes them unconstitutional. Rather, we rely on appellate courts to clarify the meaning so that future application may be more consistent. I agree with Arbour J. that Canadians would find the decisions in many of the past cases on s. 43 to be seriously objectionable. However, the discomfort of Canadians in the face of such unwarranted acts of violence toward children merely demonstrates that it is possible to define what corrective force is reasonable in the circumstances. Finally, Arbour J. argues that parents who face criminal charges as a result of corrective force will be able to rely on the defences of necessity and "de minimis". The defence of necessity, I agree, is available, but only in situations where corrective force is not in issue, like saving a child from imminent danger. As for the defence of de minimis, it is equally or more vague and difficult in application than the reasonableness defence offered by s. 43.

45     Section 43 of the Criminal Code refers to corrective force against children generally. The Foundation argues that this is overbroad because children under the age of two are not capable of correction and children over the age of 12 will only be harmed by corrective force. These classes of children, it is argued, should have been excluded.

46     This concern is addressed by Parliament's decision to confine the exemption to reasonable correction, discussed above. Experts consistently indicate that force applied to a child too young to be capable of learning from physical correction is not corrective force. Similarly, current expert consensus indicates that corporal punishment of teenagers creates a serious risk of psychological harm: employing it would thus be unreasonable. There may however be instances in which a parent or school teacher reasonably uses corrective force to restrain or remove an adolescent from a particular situation, falling short of corporal punishment. Section 43 does not permit force that cannot correct or is unreasonable. It follows that it is not overbroad.

47     Section 12 of the Charter guarantees "the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment". The Foundation argues that s. 43 offends s.12 by authorizing the use of corrective force against children. In order to engage s. 12, the Foundation must show both (a) that s. 43 involves some treatment or punishment by the state (Rodriguez, supra, at pp. 608-9), and (b) that such treatment is "cruel and unusual". These conditions are not met in this case.

48     Section 43 exculpates corrective force by parents or teachers. Corrective force by parents in the family setting is not treatment by the state. Teachers, however, may be employed by the state, raising the question of whether their use of corrective force constitutes "treatment" by the state.

49     It is unnecessary to answer this question since the conduct permitted by s. 43 does not in any event rise to the level of being "cruel and unusual", or "so excessive as to outrage standards of decency": R. v. Smith, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045, at p. 1072; Harvey v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 876, at para. 34. Section 43 permits only corrective force that is reasonable. Conduct cannot be at once both reasonable and an outrage to standards of decency. Corrective force that might rise to the level of "cruel and unusual" remains subject to criminal prosecution.

     III.Does Section 43 of the Criminal Code Offend Section 15 of the Charter?

50     Section 43 permits conduct toward children that would be criminal in the case of adult victims. The Foundation argues that this distinction violates s. 15 of the Charter, which provides that "[e]very individual is equal before and under the law" without discrimination. More particularly, the Foundation argues that this decriminalization discriminates against children by sending the message that a child is "less capable, or less worthy of recognition or value as a human being or as a member of Canadian society": Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497, at para. 51. This, it argues, offends the purpose of s. 15, to "prevent the violation of essential human dignity and freedom": Law, supra, at para. 51. Equality can be assured, in the Foundation's submission, only if the criminal law treats simple assaults on children in the disciplinary context the same as it treats simple assaults on adults.

51     The difficulty with this argument, as we shall see, is that it equates equal treatment with identical treatment, a proposition which our jurisprudence has consistently rejected. In fact, declining to bring the blunt hand of the criminal law down on minor disciplinary contacts of the nature described in the previous section reflects the resultant impact this would have on the interests of the child and on family and school relationships. Parliament's choice not to criminalize this conduct does not devalue or discriminate against children, but responds to the reality of their lives by addressing their need for safety and security in an age-appropriate manner.

52     Section 43 makes a distinction on the basis of age, which s. 15(1) lists as a prohibited ground of discrimination. The only question is whether this distinction is discriminatory under s. 15(1) of the Charter.

53     Before turning to whether s. 43 is discriminatory, it is necessary to discuss the matter of perspective. The test is whether a reasonable person possessing the claimant's attributes and in the claimant's circumstances would conclude that the law marginalizes the claimant or treats her as less worthy on the basis of irrelevant characteristics: Law, supra. Applied to a child claimant, this test may well confront us with the fiction of the reasonable, fully apprised preschool-aged child. The best we can do is to adopt the perspective of the reasonable person acting on behalf of a child, who seriously considers and values the child's views and developmental needs. To say this, however, is not to minimize the subjective component; a court assessing an equality claim involving children must do its best to take into account the subjective viewpoint of the child, which will often include a sense of relative disempowerment and vulnerability.

54     Against this backdrop, the question may be put as follows: viewed from the perspective of the reasonable person identified above, does Parliament's choice not to criminalize reasonable use of corrective force against children offend their human dignity and freedom, by marginalizing them or treating them as less worthy without regard to their actual circumstances?

55     In Law, supra, Iacobucci J. listed four factors helpful in answering this question: (1) pre-existing disadvantage; (2) correspondence between the distinction and the claimant's characteristics or circumstances; (3) the existence of ameliorative purposes or effects; and (4) the nature of the interest affected.

56     The first Law factor, vulnerability and pre-existing disadvantage, is clearly met in this case. Children are a highly vulnerable group. Similarly, the fourth factor is met. The nature of the interest affected -- physical integrity -- is profound. No one contends that s. 43 is designed to ameliorate the condition of another more disadvantaged group: the third factor. This leaves the second factor: whether s. 43 fails to correspond to the actual needs and circumstances of children.

57     This factor acknowledges that a law that "properly accommodates the claimant's needs, capacities, and circumstances" will not generally offend s. 15(1): Law, supra, at para. 70. "By contrast, a law that imposes restrictions or denies benefits on account of presumed or unjustly attributed characteristics is likely to deny essential human worth and to be discriminatory": Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 429, 2002 SCC 84, at para. 37. The question in this case is whether lack of correspondence, in this sense, exists.

58     Children need to be protected from abusive treatment. They are vulnerable members of Canadian society and Parliament and the Executive act admirably when they shield children from psychological and physical harm. In so acting, the government responds to the critical need of all children for a safe environment. Yet this is not the only need of children. Children also depend on parents and teachers for guidance and discipline, to protect them from harm and to promote their healthy development within society. A stable and secure family and school setting is essential to this growth process.

59     Section 43 is Parliament's attempt to accommodate both of these needs. It provides parents and teachers with the ability to carry out the reasonable education of the child without the threat of sanction by the criminal law. The criminal law will decisively condemn and punish force that harms children, is part of a pattern of abuse, or is simply the angry or frustrated imposition of violence against children; in this way, by decriminalizing only minimal force of transient or trivial impact, s. 43 is sensitive to children's need for a safe environment. But s. 43 also ensures the criminal law will not be used where the force is part of a genuine effort to educate the child, poses no reasonable risk of harm that is more than transitory and trifling, and is reasonable under the circumstances. Introducing the criminal law into children's families and educational environments in such circumstances would harm children more than help them. So Parliament has decided not to do so, preferring the approach of educating parents against physical discipline.

60     This decision, far from ignoring the reality of children's lives, is grounded in their lived experience. The criminal law is the most powerful tool at Parliament's disposal. Yet it is a blunt instrument whose power can also be destructive of family and educational relationships. As the Ouimet Report explained:

61     The trial judge in this case found that experts on both sides were agreed that only abusive physical conduct should be criminalized and that extending the criminal law to all disciplinary force "would have a negative impact upon families and hinder parental and teacher efforts to nurture children" (trial judge, at para. 17).

62     The reality is that without s. 43, Canada's broad assault law would criminalize force falling far short of what we think of as corporal punishment, like placing an unwilling child in a chair for a five-minute "time-out". The decision not to criminalize such conduct is not grounded in devaluation of the child, but in a concern that to do so risks ruining lives and breaking up families -- a burden that in large part would be borne by children and outweigh any benefit derived from applying the criminal process.

63     The Foundation argues that these harms could be effectively avoided by the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. However, as the Foundation asserts in its argument on vagueness, our goal should be the rule of law, not the rule of individual discretion. Moreover, if it is contrary to s. 15(1) for legislation to deny children the benefit of the criminal law on the basis of their age and consequent circumstances, it is equally discriminatory for a state agent (e.g., a police officer or prosecutor) to choose not to charge or prosecute on the same basis.

64     The Foundation argues that this is not the original purpose of the law and does not reflect its actual effects. In the Foundation's view, s. 43 was intended, and continues, to promote the view that the use of corrective force against children is not simply permitted for the purposes of the criminal law, but laudable because it is "good for children". In making this argument, the Foundation relies upon s. 43's statement that parents and teachers are "justified" in the use of reasonable corrective force. Considering "justification" in Ogg-Moss, supra, Dickson J. (as he then was) stated that s. 43 exculpates force in the correction of the child "because it considers such an action not a wrongful, but a rightful, one" (p.193 (emphasis in original)). The Foundation submits that as a "justification", s. 43 necessarily identifies praise-worthy conduct.

65     In my view, this position is overstated. We cannot conclude that Parliament intended to endorse using force against children from a single word, without also considering the history and context of the provision. In our first Criminal Code, enacted in 1892 (S.C. 1892, c. 29), Parliament used "lawful" instead of "justified" in the analogous provision:

66     My colleague, Binnie J., suggests that the negative impact of criminalizing minor corrective force is irrelevant to the s. 15 equality analysis and should only be considered at the stage of justifying a breach of s. 15 under s. 1 of the Charter (paras. 74 and 85). More particularly, he argues, at para. 100, that "[s]ection 43 protects parents and teachers, not children" (emphasis added), and therefore inquiry into the impugned laws precludes correspondence to children's needs, capacities and circumstances in the s. 15 analysis. With respect, I cannot agree. The claimants here are children. The Law analysis requires that the Court consider whether the limited exemption from criminal sanction for parents and teachers corresponds to the needs of children. This is a necessary step in determining whether the distinction demeans children and treats them as less worthy. We should not artificially truncate the s. 15 equality analysis because similar considerations may be relevant to justification in the event a breach of s. 15 is established.

67     Some argue that, even if the overall effect of s. 43 is salutary, for some children the effects of s. 43 will turn out to be more detrimental than beneficial. To this, two responses lie. First, where reasonable corrective force slips into harmful, degrading or abusive conduct, the criminal law remains ready to respond. Secondly, as Iacobucci J. stated in Law, supra, compliance with s. 15(1) of the Charter does not require "that legislation must always correspond perfectly with social reality" (para. 105). Rather,

68     I am satisfied that a reasonable person acting on behalf of a child, apprised of the harms of criminalization that s. 43 avoids, the presence of other governmental initiatives to reduce the use of corporal punishment, and the fact that abusive and harmful conduct is still prohibited by the criminal law, would not conclude that the child's dignity has been offended in the manner contemplated by s. 15(1). Children often feel a sense of disempowerment and vulnerability; this reality must be considered when assessing the impact of s. 43 on a child's sense of dignity. Yet, as emphasized, the force permitted is limited and must be set against the reality of a child's mother or father being charged and pulled into the criminal justice system, with its attendant rupture of the family setting, or a teacher being detained pending bail, with the inevitable harm to the child's crucial educative setting. Section 43 is not arbitrarily demeaning. It does not discriminate. Rather, it is firmly grounded in the actual needs and circumstances of children. I conclude that s. 43 does not offend s. 15(1) of the Charter.

69     I would dismiss the appeal. The Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law has, on behalf of children, brought an important issue of constitutional and criminal law that was not otherwise capable of coming before the Court. This justifies deviating from the normal costs rule and supports an order that both parties bear their own costs throughout.

70     I would answer the constitutional questions as follows:

1     Does s. 43 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, infringe the rights of children under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

2     If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society within the meaning of s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

3     Does s. 43 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, infringe the rights of children under s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

4     If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society within the meaning of s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

5     Does s. 43 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, infringe the rights of children under s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

6     If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by l