Canada Ends Legal Defence for Corporal Punishment

Summary#

This bill repeals section 43 of the Criminal Code, which currently lets a parent, teacher, or a person acting as a parent use “reasonable” force to correct a child. It is presented as a response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Call to Action 6. The bill takes effect 30 days after Royal Assent (Bill, Clause 1; Coming into Force; TRC Call to Action 6).

• Repeals the legal defence that allowed “reasonable” force for correction by parents, teachers, and guardians (Bill, Clause 1; Criminal Code s.43).
• After repeal, physical force used to discipline a child would no longer be justified under section 43.
• The bill does not change any other Criminal Code defences (the text only repeals s.43) (Bill, Clause 1).
• Effective 30 days after Royal Assent, nationwide (Coming into Force).

What it means for you#

• Households (parents and guardians)

  • Using physical force “by way of correction” will no longer have a special legal justification under section 43, starting 30 days after Royal Assent (Bill, Clause 1; Coming into Force).
  • Acts that involve force for discipline could be assessed under general assault laws without the s.43 defence (Criminal Code s.43).
  • The bill does not change other defences in the Criminal Code, because it only repeals s.43 (Bill, Clause 1).

• Teachers and childcare providers

  • You will not be able to rely on section 43 to justify corrective force toward a pupil or child after the effective date (Bill, Clause 1; Criminal Code s.43).
  • The bill does not amend other Criminal Code provisions or general defences; only s.43 is repealed (Bill, Clause 1).

• Police, Crown prosecutors, and courts

  • Section 43 will no longer apply in screening, charging, or trial decisions for use of force “by way of correction” toward a child, after the effective date (Bill, Clause 1; Coming into Force).
  • Courts will no longer consider s.43 as a statutory justification in such cases (Bill, Clause 1).

• Timing

  • Effective on the 30th day after Royal Assent (Coming into Force).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No direct appropriations, taxes, or fees are created by the bill; it repeals an existing Criminal Code section only (Bill, Clause 1).
• No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable on impacts to justice system workloads.

Proponents' View#

• Fulfills a specific Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendation to repeal s.43, advancing a stated reconciliation commitment (TRC Call to Action 6).
• Removes ambiguity around what “reasonable under the circumstances” means, and creates a clear legal standard against using force for discipline (Criminal Code s.43; Bill, Clause 1).
• Eliminates a legal defence that has allowed some corporal punishment, setting a uniform rule for parents, teachers, and guardians (Criminal Code s.43; Bill, Clause 1).
• Limits reliance on case law boundaries that can be hard to apply in daily life; instead, the statute would no longer permit corrective force (2004 SCC 4; Bill, Clause 1).
• Aligns criminal law with policies that discourage physical punishment of children. Data unavailable.

Opponents' View#

• Risks criminalizing minor, non-injurious parental discipline that was previously considered “reasonable” under s.43, leaving outcomes to prosecutorial discretion. Data unavailable.
• May increase reports and investigations of family incidents, adding pressure on police, child protection, and courts. Data unavailable.
• Existing Supreme Court limits already constrained s.43 to narrow circumstances (e.g., no objects, no blows to the head, limited to minor corrective force), so repeal may be unnecessary (2004 SCC 4).
• Could create uncertainty for teachers and caregivers about permissible physical contact to manage behavior or keep children safe, even though the bill does not change other general defences; training and guidance may be needed. Data unavailable.