Flag of CanadaCANADA


Report updated October 2013

PDF icon Download report as PDF

Download report as Word document

Accessible version

Child population
6,926,000 (UNICEF, 2011)

Summary of law reform necessary to achieve full prohibition

Prohibition is still to be achieved in the home, alternative care settings, day care, schools and penal institutions.

Section 43 of the Criminal Code allows for the use of force “by way of correction”. This provision should be repealed and explicit prohibition enacted of all corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment in childrearing and education.

Alternative care settings – Explicit prohibition of corporal punishment should be enacted in legislation applicable to all alternative care settings (foster care, institutions, places of safety, emergency care, etc).

Day care – Corporal punishment should be prohibited in all early childhood care (nurseries, crèches, kindergartens, preschools, family centres, etc) and all day care for older children (day centres, after-school childcare, childminding, etc).

Schools – Explicit prohibition of corporal punishment should be enacted in legislation applicable to all schools, public and private, in all provinces and territories.

Penal institutions – Legislation should explicitly prohibit corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure in all institutions accommodating children in conflict with the law.

Current legality of corporal punishment

Home

Corporal punishment is lawful in the home. Section 43 of the Criminal Code (“Protection of Persons in Authority”) states: “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.” A Supreme Court ruling on 30 January 2004 stated that this section justifies only “minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature” and that it rules out corporal punishment of children under the age of two years or over the age of 12 years, as well as degrading, inhuman or harmful conduct, discipline using objects such as rulers or belts and blows or slaps to the head (Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada (Attorney General), file no. 29113). In Quebec, reference to a “right of correction” was removed from the Civil Code in 1994, and a number of rulings have stated that the right of correction is no longer recognised in Quebec’s civil law, but section 43 of the federal Criminal Code applies nevertheless.

Numerous bills which would repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code, most recently Senate Bill S-204 which died in March 2011 when federal elections were called. However, there is an ongoing campaign for law reform.

Alternative care settings

Corporal punishment is prohibited in foster care in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. There is no explicit prohibition in foster care in New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan and Yukon. Corporal punishment is prohibited in state provided care in Alberta, British Colombia and Manitoba. In Ontario, it is prohibited in provincially-licensed childcare programmes and foster homes, and for all children receiving services from a child protection agency or other service provider licensed or approved by the province.

Day care

Corporal punishment is prohibited in child care in all states and territories except New Brunswick. In Quebec, as with parents, carers have no right of correction under the Civil Code, but section 43 of the federal Criminal Code applies (see under “Home”).

Schools

The 2004 Supreme Court judgement (see under “Home”) stated that teachers may not use corporal punishment, although they may use reasonable force to remove a child from a classroom or to secure compliance with instructions. This prohibition is not reflected in the laws of all provinces and territories. As at August 2011, corporal punishment is prohibited by law in state schools in British Columbia (1973), New Brunswick (1990), Newfoundland (1997), Northwest Territories (1995), Nova Scotia (1989), Nunavut (1995), Prince Edward Island (1993), Quebec (1997), Saskatchewan (2005), Yukon (1990) and Ontario (2009). There is no legal prohibition in Alberta and Manitoba, though policy in many school boards states that corporal punishment should not be used.

Penal institutions

Corporal punishment is unlawful as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions. We have no details of applicable law but in Quebec and presumably other provinces/territories prohibition is not explicit.

Sentence for crime

Corporal punishment is unlawful as a sentence for crime under the Criminal Code. The relevant provisions were repealed in 1972.

Prevalence research

A 2012 survey of 4,029 mothers and 1,342 fathers of children under 17 in Quebec found that although the use of corporal punishment had declined since similar surveys in 1999 and 2004, 35% of children experienced physical punishment such as slaps with bare hands on the buttocks, hand, arm or leg at least once a year and 11% experienced it three times or more in a year. Forty-nine per cent of children experienced psychological aggression, such as being shouted or screamed at, called names or threatened, three or more times a year. Ten per cent of mothers and 15% of fathers thought it was acceptable to slap a disobedient child. (Clément, M. E. et al (2013), La violence familiale dans la vie des enfants du Québec, 2012 : Les attitudes parentales et les pratiques familiales, Montréal: Institut de la statistique du Québec)

The Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect 2008, the third nationwide study to examine the incidence of reported child maltreatment, involved 112 child welfare service agencies in Canada, reporting on 15,980 child protection investigations. The study found that nearly three quarters (74%) of all cases of “substantiated physical abuse” were cases of physical punishment and 27% of “substantiated emotional maltreatment incidents” were initiated as a form of punishment. In the vast majority (17,212) of the estimated 18,688 cases of “substantiated physical abuse”, physical violence was the primary form of maltreatment. Of cases of physical violence, just over half (54%) involved children being slapped or “spanked”, 30% involved children being shaken, pushed, grabbed or thrown, 21% involved children being hit with objects and 8% involved children being punched, kicked or bitten. (Jud, A. & Trocmé, N. (2013), Physical Abuse and Physical Punishment in Canada, Child Canadian Welfare Research Portal Information Sheet No. 122)

A study involving questionnaires with 712 medical students (74% female) at Laval University in Québec between 2006 and 2011 found that 22% of them were in favour of corporal punishment of children. Of men who took part, 31% were in favour of corporal punishment; of women, 18% were in favour. Of students who had experienced corporal punishment as children, 36% were in favour of it, compared to 4% of students who had not experienced corporal punishment as children. (Labbé, J. et al (2012), “The opinion of Québec medical students on corporal punishment”, Paediatric Child Health 17(9), 490-494)

In an online poll of more than 6,000 people, 54.6% said that “spanking” should not be allowed under Canadian law. Thirty-five per cent said that “spanking” should be allowed and that the limits set out by the Supreme Court in 2004 were “reasonable” and 8.5% that it should be allowed and the limits set by the Supreme Court were “too strict”. (Reported in CBC News, 6 February 2012)

A 2008 study in Canada with adolescents and their parents of Caribbean and of Filipino heritage found that 78% of the 118 Caribbean parents interviewed and 42% of the 136 Filipino parents interviewed thought that they should have the “right” to physically punish their children, while adolescents disagreed. (Hassan, G. et al. (2008), “Caribbean and Filipino adolescents' and parents' perceptions of parental authority, physical punishment, and cultural values and their relation to migratory characteristics”, Canadian Ethnic Studies, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 171 – 186)

A survey of 1,000 people in an SES/Sun Media poll on the night before the Supreme Court ruling in January 2004 (see above) found that 64% support the use of force such as spanking by parents to discipline a child, though a wide majority oppose physical force being used by others. Support for spanking as a reasonable measure was highest in the West at 71% and Ontario at 62%. The lowest support was Quebec at 47%. Only 7% supported criminal charges for parents who spank their children; 7% also said that children should be removed from homes where their parents used spanking as corporal punishment; 5% supported both these measures. (“Spanking poll backs ruling”, Winnipeg Sun, Manitoba, 1 February 2004)

In a sample of mothers of preschoolers in Manitoba, 59% reported having used physical punishment in the previous two weeks. (Ateah, C. & Durrant, J. E. (2005), “Maternal use of physical punishment in response to child misbehavior: Implications for child abuse prevention”, Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, pp. 177-193)

Recommendations by human rights treaty bodies

Committee on the Rights of the Child

“While welcoming the State party’s efforts to implement the Committee’s concluding observations of 2003 on the State party’s initial report (CRC/C/15/Add.215, 2003), the Committee notes with regret that some of the recommendations contained therein have not been fully addressed.

“The Committee urges the State party to take all necessary measures to address those recommendations from the concluding observations on the second periodic report under the Convention that have not been implemented or sufficiently implemented, particularly those related to … corporal punishment….

“The Committee is gravely concerned that corporal punishment is condoned by law in the State party under Section 43 of the Criminal Code. Furthermore, the Committee notes with regret that the 2004 Supreme Court decision Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada, while stipulating that corporal punishment is only justified in cases of “minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature,” upheld the law. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that the legalization of corporal punishment can lead to other forms of violence.

“The Committee urges the State party to repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code to remove existing authorization of the use of “reasonable force” in disciplining children and explicitly prohibit all forms of violence against all age groups of children, however light, within the family, in schools and in other institutions where children may be placed. Additionally, the Committee recommends that the State party:

  1. strengthen and expand awareness-raising for parents, the public, children, and professionals on alternative forms of discipline and promote respect for children’s rights, with the involvement of children, while raising awareness about the adverse consequences of corporal punishment;

  2. ensure the training of all professionals working with children, including judges, law enforcement, health, social and child welfare, and education professionals to promptly identity, address and report all cases of violence against children.”

(6 December 2012, CRC/C/CAN/CO/3-4, Concluding observations on third-fourth report, paras. 7, 8, 44 and 45)

“The Committee, while noting the implementation of some of the recommendations (CRC/C/15/Add.37 of 20 June 1995) it made upon consideration of the State party’s initial report (CRC/C/1/Add.3), regrets that the rest have not been, or have been insufficiently, addressed, particularly those contained in: … paragraph 25, suggesting a review of penal legislation that allows corporal punishment.

“The Committee urges the State party to make every effort to address those recommendations contained in the concluding observations on the initial report that have not yet been implemented….

“The Committee welcomes the efforts being made by the State party to discourage corporal punishment by promoting research on alternatives to corporal punishment of children, supporting studies on the incidence of abuse, promoting healthy parenting and improving understanding about child abuse and its consequences. However, the Committee is deeply concerned that the State party has not enacted legislation explicitly prohibiting all forms of corporal punishment and has taken no action to remove section 43 of the Criminal Code, which allows corporal punishment.

“The Committee recommends that the State party adopt legislation to remove the existing authorization of the use of ‘reasonable force’ in disciplining children and explicitly prohibit all forms of violence against children, however light, within the family, in schools and in other institutions where children may be placed.

“The Committee recommends that the State party further improve the quality of education throughout the State party in order to achieve the goals of article 29, paragraph 1, of the Convention and the Committee’s general comment No.1 on the aims of education by, inter alia:

d) adopting appropriate legislative measures to forbid the use of any form of corporal punishment in schools and encouraging child participation in discussions about disciplinary measures.”
(27 October 2003, CRC/C/15/Add.215, Concluding observations on second report, paras. 4, 5, 32, 33 and 45)

“Further measures seem to be needed to effectively prevent and combat all forms of corporal punishment and ill-treatment of children in schools or in institutions where children may be placed. The Committee is also preoccupied by the existence of child abuse and violence within the family and the insufficient protection afforded by the existing legislation in that regard.

“The Committee suggests that the State party examine the possibility of reviewing the penal legislation allowing corporal punishment of children by parents, in schools and in institutions where children may be placed. In this regard and in the light of the provisions set out in articles 3 and 19 of the Convention, the Committee recommends that the physical punishment of children in families be prohibited. In connection with the child’s right to physical integrity as recognized by the Convention, namely its articles 19, 28 and 37, and in the light of the best interests of the child, the Committee further suggests that the State party consider the possibility of introducing new legislation and follow-up mechanisms to prevent violence within the family, and that educational campaigns be launched with a view to changing attitudes in society on the use of physical punishment in the family and fostering the acceptance of its legal prohibition.”
(20 June 1995, CRC/C/15/Add.37, Concluding observations on initial report, paras. 14 and 25)

Universal Periodic Review

Canada was examined in the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review in 2009 (session 4). No specific recommendation was made during the review concerning corporal punishment of children but the Government accepted the following recommendation (5 October 2009, A/HRC/11/17, Report of the Working Group, para. 86(34)):

“Implement in national legislation the prohibition and criminalization of all types of violence against women and children, specially indigenous women and children, in accordance with the commitments acquired in the corresponding Conventions (Bolivia)”

In remarks on this recommendation made at a later state, Sweden encouraged Canada to include prohibition of corporal punishment (16 October 2009, A/HRC/11/37, Report of the Eleventh session of the Human Rights Council, para. 256).

Review in the second cycle took place in 2013 (session 16). The following recommendation was made (28 June 2013, A/HRC/24/11, Report of the working group, para. 129(118)):

“Explicitly criminalize corporal punishment of children (Iceland)”

The Government rejected the recommendation, stating (17 September 2013, A/HRC/24/11/Add.1, Report of the working group: Addendum, para. 24): “The Criminal Code criminalizes all child abuse, but provides a limited defence to parents, caregivers and teachers, in cases only where minor corrective force of a transitory or trifling nature is used.”

This analysis has been compiled from information from governmental and non-governmental sources, including reports on implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Every effort is made to maintain its accuracy. Please send us updating information and details of sources for missing information: info@endcorporalpunishment.org.

Back to top