Section 43 permits parents, guardians, and teachers to use “reasonable force by way of correction” toward a child under their care. Though often framed as a safeguard for minor disciplinary acts, it creates legal ambiguity that shields adult authority even when harm is done. While intended to limit excessive punishment, its language is open-ended—leaving children vulnerable to subjective definitions of what is “reasonable.”
In a 2004 ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada imposed some limits: corporal punishment cannot be degrading or involve implements, and it may not be used on children under two or over twelve. Teachers, they ruled, cannot use force to punish, but may still restrain or remove students. Yet this guidance was never codified into new legislation. Section 43 remains active in the Criminal Code, unchanged and still invoked to justify force in both home and school settings.
Its continued existence undermines children’s rights to physical and psychological safety. It disproportionately affects disabled, racialised, and Indigenous children, whose behaviour is more often pathologised or punished. In Alberta and Manitoba, corporal punishment has not even been formally outlawed at the provincial level, and private schools across Canada often operate under less scrutiny.
Section 43 matters because it gives institutional cover to a wide spectrum of disciplinary practices that prioritize control over care. Even when no physical contact occurs, the presence of this law sustains an educational culture that normalises domination, silence, and punishment—laying the groundwork for practices like collective punishment to flourish unchecked.
-
How is collective punishment connected to Section 43?
Section 43 enables collective punishment by authorising adult control over children without accountability. Repeal is needed to uphold children’s rights.
Legal disclaimer
This site is created by parents and advocates, not lawyers. The content provided here is for informational and educational purposes only. It reflects our interpretations of public policy, legislation, and lived experience. It should not be taken as legal advice. If you need legal guidance regarding your specific situation, we recommend consulting a qualified lawyer or legal clinic in your jurisdiction.
