Fdn. for Children v. Can. (A.G.) (2004), 183 O.A.C. 1 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Temp. Cite: [2004] O.A.C. TBEd. JA.105
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, The 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 défense des droits des enfants et des jeunes, and Child Welfare League of Canada (interveners)
(29113; 2004 SCC 4; 2004 CSC 4)
Indexed As: Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General)
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ.
January 30, 2004.
Summary:
Section 43 of the Criminal Code provided 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 in the circumstances”. The Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law (a not-for-profit organization advocating on behalf of children’s rights), challenged the constitutionality of s. 43. The Foundation argued that s. 43 violated ss. 7, 12 and 15(1) of the Charter. (The case was presented to the court without a factual underpinning with special permission of the court because the case raised a serious legal question and there was no other reasonable and effective way for the issue to be raised).
The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported [2000] O.T.C. 769, dismissed the Foundation’s application, holding that the constitutional challenge failed. The court held that s. 43 was neither void for vagueness, nor overbroad. However, s. 43 infringed the s. 7 Charter right to security of the person, but the infringement was in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The court held further that s. 43, when properly construed, did not involve treatment or punishment that was cruel or unusual within the meaning of s. 12 of the Charter. Also s. 43 did not infringe the equality rights of children contrary to s. 15. The Foundation appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 154 O.A.C. 144, dismissed the appeal. The Foundation appealed again.
The Supreme Court of Canada, Binnie dissenting in part and Arbour and Deschamps, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The court held that s. 43 did not violate ss. 7, 12 or 15(1) of the Charter.
Civil Rights – Topic 1206.6
Security of the person – General – Correction of children by force – Section 43 of the Criminal Code justified child correction by force in certain circumstances – A children’s rights organization challenged the constitutionality of s. 43 under s. 7 of the Charter – The Crown conceded that s. 43 adversely affected children’s security of the person – The children’s rights organization argued that s. 43 offended three principles of fundamental justice, namely: (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 – The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 43 did not offend s. 7 of the Charter – Assuming that alleged child victims were constitutionally entitled to procedural rights, s. 43 provided adequate procedural safeguards to protect that interest – While the “best interests of the child” was a recognized legal principle, that legal principle was not a principle of fundamental justice – Section 43 properly construed was not unduly vague nor overbroad – See paragraphs 3 to 46.
Civil Rights – Topic 3107
Trials – Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings – General principles and definitions – Void for vagueness doctrine – Section 43 of the Criminal Code justified child correction by force in certain circumstances – The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 43, properly construed, was not unduly vague nor overbroad – See paragraphs 13 to 46.
Civil Rights – Topic 3107
Trials – Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings – General principles and definitions – Void for vagueness doctrine – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the standard for “vagueness” in the constitutional sense – The court stated, inter alia, that “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’ … Certainty is not required …” – See paragraph 15.
Civil Rights – Topic 3107.2
Trials – Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings – General principles and definitions – Overbreadth principle – [See first
Civil Rights – Topic 3107
].
Civil Rights – Topic 3840.3
Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment – What constitutes cruel and unusual punishment – Correction of children by force – Section 43 of the Criminal Code justified child correction by force in certain circumstances – A children’s rights organization argued that s. 43 violated s. 12 of the Charter – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that in order to engage s. 12, the children’s rights organization would have to show both: (a) that s. 43 involved some treatment or punishment by the state, and (b) that such treatment was “cruel and unusual” – The court held that it was not necessary to decide whether the use of corrective force by teachers was “treatment” by the state, because the conduct permitted by s. 43 did not, in any event, rise to the level of being “cruel and unusual” – See paragraphs 47 to 49.
Civil Rights – Topic 5666.5
Equality and protection of the law – Particular cases – Correction of children by force – Section 43 of the Criminal Code justified child correction by force in certain circumstances – A children’s rights organization challenged the constitutionality of s. 43 under s. 15 of the Charter – The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 43 did not offend s. 15 of the Charter – See paragraphs 50 to 68.
Civil Rights – Topic 8547
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Interpretation – Particular words and phrases – Principles of fundamental justice – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that while the “best interests of the child” was a recognized legal principle, that legal principle was not a principle of fundamental justice – See paragraph 7.
Civil Rights – Topic 8547
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Interpretation – Particular words and phrases – Principles of fundamental justice – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “jurisprudence on s. 7 [of the Charter] has established that a ‘principle of fundamental justice’ must fulfil three criteria … 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’ … Second, there must be sufficient consensus that the alleged principle is ‘vital or fundamental to our societal notion of justice’ … 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” – See paragraph 8.
Civil Rights – Topic 8626
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Regulation of guaranteed rights – Vagueness rule – [See both
Civil Rights – Topic 3107
].
Criminal Law – Topic 225
General principles – Statutory defences or exceptions – Correction of child by force – Section 43 of the Criminal Code justified child correction by force in certain circumstances – A children’s rights organization challenged the constitutionality of s. 43 under the Charter, s. 7 (principles of fundamental justice), s. 12 (cruel and unusual treatment or punishment) and s. 15(1) (discrimination) – The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 43 did not offend any of these provisions of the Charter – See paragraphs 1 to 70.
Criminal Law – Topic 1421
Offences against person and reputation – Assaults – Defence – Child correction – [See
Criminal Law – Topic 225
].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al. (2003), 314 N.R. 1; 191 B.C.A.C. 1; 314 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 8, 204].
Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 8].
Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 8].
Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 10].
R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society et al. (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91, refd to. [paras. 15, 178, 215].
Grayned v. Rockford (City) (1972), 408 U.S. 104, refd to. [para. 16].
Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 20].
Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 20, 214].
R. v. Ogg-Moss, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 173; 54 N.R. 81; 5 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 20, 79, 137, 231].
R. v. M.K. (1992), 81 Man.R.(2d) 151; 30 W.A.C. 151; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 108 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 26, 161].
Ordon et al. v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; 232 N.R. 201; 115 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 31].
A. v. United Kingdom (September 25, 1998), Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI, 2692 (Eur. Court H.R.), refd to. [para. 34].
R. v. D. (1984), 37 Sask.R. 84; 16 C.C.C.(3d) 453 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 35, 151].
R. v. Dupperon – see R. v. D.
Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [paras. 39, 177].
Prostitution Reference – see Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.
R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 49].
Harvey v. New Brunswick (Attorney General) et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 876; 201 N.R. 1; 178 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 454 A.P.R. 161, refd to. [para. 49].
Law v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 50, 72, 183, 220].
Gosselin v. Quebec (Procureur général), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 429; 298 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 57, 86].
R. v. Cuerrier (H.G.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 371; 229 N.R. 279; 111 B.C.A.C. 1; 181 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 80, 205, 221].
Streng v. Winchester (Township) (1986), 31 D.L.R.(4th) 734 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 84].
Jones v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1988), 65 O.R.(2d) 737 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 84].
Piercey v. General Bakeries Ltd. et al. (1986), 61 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 185 A.P.R. 147; 31 D.L.R.(4th) 373 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 84].
Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 84].
Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium et al. v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 263 N.R. 203; 145 B.C.A.C. 1; 237 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 86].
Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 90].
Eaton v. Board of Education of Brant County, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241; 207 N.R. 171; 97 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 94].
Granovsky v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 703; 253 N.R. 329, refd to. [para. 95].
Workers’ Compensation Board (N.S.) v. Martin et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504; 310 N.R. 22; 217 N.S.R.(2d) 301; 683 A.P.R. 301, refd to. [para. 95].
Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; 181 N.R. 253; 81 O.A.C. 253, refd to. [para. 98].
R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [paras. 101, 193, 233].
Child and Family Services of Winnipeg Central v. K.L.W. et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 519; 260 N.R. 203; 150 Man.R.(2d) 161; 230 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 114, 185, 225].
New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. J.G. and D.V., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46; 244 N.R. 276; 216 N.B.R.(2d) 25; 552 A.P.R. 25, refd to. [para. 114].
R. v. Jobidon, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 714; 128 N.R. 321; 49 O.A.C. 83, refd to. [para. 117].
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 119].
R. v. Pickard, [1995] B.C.J. No. 2861 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 133].
R. v. G.C.C. (2001), 206 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 231; 618 A.P.R. 231 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 133].
R. v. F. and F. (1987), 55 Sask.R. 302 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 133].
R. v. Fritz and Fritz – see R. v. F. and F.
R. v. Bell (R.A.), [2001] O.T.C. 380 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 133].
R. v. N.S., [1999] O.J. No. 320 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 133].
R. v. Asante-Mensah (D.), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 3; 306 N.R. 289; 175 O.A.C. 317, refd to. [para. 134].
R. v. Ruzic (M.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 687; 268 N.R. 1; 145 O.A.C. 235, refd to. [para. 137].
R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45; 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 140, 225].
R. v. McCraw, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 72; 128 N.R. 299; 49 O.A.C. 47, refd to. [para. 145].
R. v. Campbell (1977), 38 C.C.C.(2d) 6 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 146].
R. v. Wetmore (R.) (1996), 172 N.B.R.(2d) 224; 439 A.P.R. 224 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 153].
R. v. Graham (D.) (1995), 160 N.B.R.(2d) 306; 412 A.P.R. 306 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 154].
R. v. Plourde (J.-G.) (1993), 140 N.B.R.(2d) 273; 358 A.P.R. 273 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 155].
R. v. Caouette, [2002] Q.J. No. 1055 (C.Q.), refd to. [para. 156].
R. v. Gallant (R.J.) (1993), 110 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 174; 346 A.P.R. 174 (P.E.I. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 156].
R. v. Fonder, [1993] Q.J. No. 238 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 156].
R. v. James, [1998] O.J. No. 1438 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 157].
R. v. Wood (D.) (1995), 176 A.R. 223 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 158].
R. v. Vivian, [1992] B.C.J. No. 2190 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 159].
R. v. Murphy (S.M.) (1996), 78 B.C.A.C. 151; 128 W.A.C. 151; 108 C.C.C.(3d) 414 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 161].
R. v. Goforth (1991), 98 Sask.R. 26 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 161].
R. v. Wheeler, [1990] Y.J. No. 191 (Terr. Ct.), refd to. [para. 161].
R. v. V.L., [1995] O.J. No. 3346 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 164].
R. v. Holmes, [2001] Q.J. No. 7640 (C.S.), refd to. [para. 165].
R. v. Harriott (H.R.) (1992), 128 N.B.R.(2d) 155; 322 A.P.R. 155 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 165].
R. v. Atkinson, [1994] 9 W.W.R. 485 (Man. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 166].
R. v. L.A.K. (1992), 104 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 118; 329 A.P.R. 118 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 168].
R. v. Robinson (1986), 1 Y.R. 161 (Terr. Ct.), refd to. [para. 169].
R. v. V.H. and M.H., [2001] Nfld & P.E.I.R. Uned. 96 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 170].
R. v. O.J., [1996] O.J. No. 647 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 170].
R. v. Dunfield (1990), 103 N.B.R.(2d) 172; 259 A.P.R. 172 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 170].
Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779; 129 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 172].
R. v. White (J.K.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 417; 240 N.R. 1; 123 B.C.A.C. 161; 201 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 175].
Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 179].
R. v. LeBeau; R. v. Lofthouse (1988), 25 O.A.C. 1; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 163 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 180].
R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 190].
R. v. Morales (M.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711; 144 N.R. 176; 51 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 191].
Osborne, Millar and Barnhart et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69; 125 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 193].
R. v. Morgentaler, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 616; 4 N.R. 277, refd to. [para. 196].
R. v. Perka, Nelson, Hines and Johnson, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232; 55 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 196].
R. v. Manning (1994), 31 C.R.(4th) 54 (B.C. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 197].
R. v. Morris (1981), 31 A.R. 189; 61 C.C.C.(2d) 163 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 198].
R. v. Kormos (1998), 14 C.R.(5th) 312 (Ont. Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 201].
Ship Reward, Re (1818), 2 Dods. 265; 165 E.R. 1482, refd to. [para. 202].
R. v. Overvold (1972), 9 C.C.C.(2d) 517 (N.W.T. Mag. Ct.), refd to. [para. 205].
R. v. S. (1974), 17 C.C.C.(2d) 181 (Man. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 205].
R. v. McBurney (1974), 15 C.C.C.(2d) 361 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1975), 24 C.C.C.(2d) 44 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 205].
R. v. Li (1984), 16 C.C.C.(3d) 382 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 205].
R. v. Lepage (1989), 79 Sask.R. 246; 74 C.R.(3d) 368 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 205].
R. v. Matsuba (G.A.) (1993), 137 A.R. 34 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 205].
R. v. Hinchey (M.F.) and Hinchey (B.A.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1128; 205 N.R. 161; 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 459 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 205].
Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183, refd to. [para. 215].
R. v. Lucas (J.D.) et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 439; 224 N.R. 161; 163 Sask.R. 161; 165 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 215].
Sheena B., Re, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; 176 N.R. 161; 78 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 225].
R.B. v. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto – see Sheena B., Re.
Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 242].
Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83, refd to. [para. 244].
R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 244].
M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3; 238 N.R. 179; 121 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 244].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 3]; sect. 12 [para. 47]; sect. 15 [para. 50].
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 43 [para. 1 et seq.].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Ashworth, Andrew, Principles of Criminal Law (4th Ed. 2003), p. 319 [para. 116].
Bernard, Claire, Corporal Punishment as a Means of Correcting Children (November 1998), p. 8 [para. 107].
Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book III (1742), p. 120 [paras. 80, 116].
Canada, Department of Justice, Reforming the General Part of the Criminal Code: A Consultation Paper (1994), Trivial violations, pp. 24, 25 [para. 205].
Canada, Law Reform Commission, Working Paper 38, Assault (1984), p. 44 [paras. 60, 127].
Canada, Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, Toward Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections (Ouimet Report) (1969), pp. 12, 13 [para. 60].
Canada, The Canadian Constitution 1980: Proposed Resolution respecting the Constitution of Canada (1980), p. 20 [para. 83].
Canadian Bar Association, Criminal Recodification Task Force Report, Principles of Criminal Liability: Proposals for a New General Part of the Criminal Code of Canada (1992), p. 189 [para. 204].
Colvin, Eric, Principles of Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1991), p. 100 [para. 203].
Greene, Sharon D., The Unconstitutionality of Section 43 of the Criminal Code: Children’s Right to be Protected from Physical Assault, Part I (1999), 41 Crim. L.Q. 288, pp. 292, 293 [para. 172].
Hamilton, K.R., De Minimis Non Curat Lex (December 1991), generally [para. 204].
Hétu, Jean, Droit judicaire: De minimis non curat praetor: une maxime qui a toute son importance (1990), 50 R. du B. 1065, pp. 1065 to 1076 [para. 203].
Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (4th Ed. 1997) (2003 Looseleaf Update – Release 1), vol. 2, pp. 44-48 to 44-50 [para. 177].
Martin, John C., The Criminal Code of Canada (1955), p. 118 [para. 172].
McGillivray, Anne, He’ll learn it on his body: Disciplining childhood in Canadian law (1997), 5 Int’l J. Child. Rts. 193, pp. 199 [para. 172]; 228 [para. 191]; 240 [para. 198].
McGillivray, Anne, R. v. K.(M.): Legitimating Brutality (1993), 16 C.R.(4th) 125, pp. 129, 130 [para. 173].
Mewett, Alan W., and Manning, Morris, Criminal Law (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 531 [para. 196].
Newell, Peter, Children Are People Too: The Case Against Physical Punishment (1989), pp. 2, 4 [para. 108].
Ouimet Report – see Canada, Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, Toward Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections.
Sharpe, Robert J., Swinton, Katherine E., and Roach, Kent, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (2nd Ed. 2002), c. 17 [para. 242].
Strauss, S.A., Book Review of South African Criminal Law and Procedure (1970), 87 So. Afr. L.J. 470, p. 483 [para. 203].
Stuart, Don, Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise (4th Ed. 2001), pp. 503 [para. 172]; 506 [para. 198]; 594 to 599 [para. 205]; 598 [para. 206].
United Nations, Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports submitted by State Parties Under Article 40 of the Convention, Thirty-fourth Session, CRC/C/15/Add.215 (2003), paras. 32, 33 [para. 188].
United Nations, Committee on the Rights of the Child, Report adopted by the Committee at its 209th meeting (January 27, 1995), Eighth Session, CRC/C/38, para. 218 [para. 186].
United Nations, Committee on the Rights of the Child, Report adopted by the Committee at its 233rd meeting (June 9, 1995), Ninth Session, CRC/C/43, para. 93 [para. 187].
United Nations, Report of the Human Rights Committee, Vol. I, UN GAOR, Fiftieth Session, Supp. No. 40 (A/50/40) (1995), paras. 426, 434 [para. 33].
United Nations, Report of the Human Rights Committee, Vol. I, UN GAOR, Fifty-fourth Session, Supp. No. 40 (A/54/40) (1999), para. 358 [para. 33].
United Nations, Report of the Human Rights Committee, Vol. I, UN GAOR, Fifty-fifth Session, Supp. No. 40 (A/55/40) (2000), paras. 306, 429 [para. 33].
Counsel:
Paul B. Schabas, Cheryl Milne and Nicholas Adamson, for the appellant;
Roslyn J. Levine, Q.C., and Gina M. Scarcella, for the respondent;
Allan O’Brien and Steven J. Welchner, for the intervener, Canadian Teachers’ Federation;
J. Gregory Richards, Ritu R. Bhasin and Marvin M. Bernstein, for the intervener, Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies;
David M. Brown, Manizeh Fancy and Dallas Miller, Q.C., for the intervener, Coalition for Family Autonomy;
Hélène Tessier and Athanassia Bitzakidis, for the intervener, Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse;
Michael E. Barrack and Christopher Wayland, for the intervener, Child Welfare League of Canada.
Solicitors of Record:
Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Toronto, Ontario, and Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;
Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;
Nelligan O’Brien Payne, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, Canadian Teachers’ Federation;
WeirFoulds, Toronto, Ontario, and Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies;
Stikeman, Elliott, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Coalition for Family Autonomy;
Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervener, Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse;
McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Child Welfare League of Canada.
This appeal was heard on June 6, 2003, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages on January 30, 2004, when the following opinions were filed:
McLachlin, C.J.C. (Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and LeBel, JJ.) – see paragraphs 1 to 70;
Binnie, J., dissenting in part – see paragraphs 71 to 130;
Arbour, J., dissenting – see paragraphs 131 to 211;
Deschamps, J., dissenting – see paragraphs 212 to 246.
