Date:

File No:
Registry:

20160119
23125-1
Salmon Arm

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

REGINA

v.
T.F. and T.A.F.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE
HONOURABLE JUDGE E.F. DE WALLE

Counsel for the Crown:

Counsel for the Defendant:

Mariane Armstrong
Ian McTavish

Place of Hearing:

Salmon Arm, B.C.

Date of Hearing:

November 3, 2015

Date of Judgment:

January 19, 2016

2016 BCPC 6 (CanLII)

Citation:
R. v. T.F. and T.A.F.
2016 BCPC 0006

R. v. T.F. and T.A.F.

Page

[1]

The accused are charged with one count on Information 23125.

[2]

Count 1 is that on or about the 14 th day of February, 2015, at or near Salmon

Arm, in the Province of British Columbia, did in committing an assault upon M.F., use a
weapon or an imitation weapon, to wit: a mini hockey stick and a skipping rope, contrary
to Section 267(a) of the Criminal Code.
[3]

The accused both entered a plea of not guilty to the charge.

[4]

The accused are the parents of the complainant (the daughter). At the relevant

time, the complainant was 14 years of age. On February 14, 2015 the accused T.F.,
(the father), struck his daughter on the buttocks with a plastic, mini hockey stick. On
the same day the accused T.A.F., (the mother), also struck the daughter on her
buttocks, using a skipping rope. The parents applied force to the complainant as a form
of discipline.
[5]

The issues in this case are as follows:

1. Did the child consent to the application of force to her body?

2. In the circumstances of this case does s. 34 of the Criminal Code provide a defence
to the parents?
SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE
[6]

The Crown and Defence in this case prepared and filed Admissions of Fact that

are marked as Exhibit 1.

2016 BCPC 6 (CanLII)

INTRODUCTION

R. v. T.F. and T.A.F.

[7]

Page

The Admissions form part of the evidence in the trial. I will not recite the

Admissions in full but will highlight the relevant portions.

On February 14, 2015, the parents were living at their home in Salmon Arm,

British Columbia. Three of their four children lived with the parents in their home. The
complainant was 14 years old and was born on [omitted for publication]. The two
younger siblings were ages 13 and 11 years respectively. The fourth child, an older
sibling, was living in Alberta.
[9]

Approximately a week before February 14, 2015 the father took away the

complainants cell phone because she had renewed her acquaintance with a young
man, (B.N.). The daughter had been fond of B.N. but he broke off ties shortly after
Christmas. The complainant was also required to give her parents her cell phone
password that she willingly provided.
[10]

Although her phone had been taken the daughter was able to continue

communicating with another friend using her iPad. As a result, the father also
demanded that the daughter hand over her iPad, which she did. On reviewing the text
messages on the iPad the father discovered messages that referred to his daughter
sending nude photographs of herself to B.N.. The daughter sent the nude pictures
through a site called Snapchat. The daughter believed that the photos only lasted a
few seconds after transmission using the Snapchat site. The parents never actually
saw the nude photos that were sent by their daughter in December 2014.
[11]

On February 14, 2015 the daughter was planning to attend a hockey game in

Kamloops with her father. She was in the bathroom when her father confronted her

2016 BCPC 6 (CanLII)

[8]

R. v. T.F. and T.A.F.

Page

about the nude photos. The father asked her why she sent the photos and said that she
had not been raised to be like that.
The two continued to speak as they entered the garage of the home. The

accused father told his daughter that she needed to respect herself and not to throw
herself at boys.
[13]

Once in the garage the daughter and her father discussed what form of

punishment would be appropriate. The daughter understood that she would lose her
electronics for a very long time; she would not be permitted to have guests over or go
anywhere outside the house after school, and expected that she might be spanked.
The daughter subsequently recalled that her father offered her two options: to be
grounded for a really long time or to be spanked. She opted for the spanking because
she did not want to be grounded as that would affect her sports activities.
[14]

The child understood that her parents beliefs about discipline came from their

adherence to the Bible which they believe advocates the use of the rod to spank,
rather than hands, as hands are to be used as instruments of love.
[15]

The accused father picked up a plastic mini hockey stick (approximately 18

inches in length) and struck his daughter two or three times on the buttocks over top of
her pyjama pants. The blows hurt. The accused father told his daughter as he struck
her that he was doing this because he loved her and not out of hate. He wanted her to
understand what she had done.

2016 BCPC 6 (CanLII)

[12]

R. v. T.F. and T.A.F.

[16]

Page

Shortly after the father administered the spanking to his daughter the mother

arrived at the home. The father told his wife about the nude photographs that the

that was in the garage. She hit her daughter two or three times on her buttocks with the
skipping rope. The mother said she was doing this because she loved her daughter.
[17]

On February 16, 2015 the child was at school when she told two of her girlfriends

about the punishment she had received from her parents. She also showed her two
friends her buttocks. One of the friends noticed that the childs buttocks were red and
swollen and covered in bruises which were purple and green. The other friend saw red
and purple marks on the childs buttocks.
[18]

The school principal was informed of the incident and contacted the Ministry of

Children and Families. The Ministry subsequently contacted the RCMP.

[19]

RCMP Constable Gill went to the home of the parents. He advised the father

about the allegations. The father became upset and said that he spanked his daughter
as punishment for things she should not be doing.
[20]

Dr. Heunis, a medical doctor in Salmon Arm, examined the daughter on February

23, 2015. He noted that the daughters buttocks showed healed linear bruises to her
right buttock.
[21]

The Crown also filed, as part of Exhibit 1, a series of photographs showing some

markings, described as linear bruises, which are visible on the childs right buttock. The
photographs were taken by an RCMP officer.

2016 BCPC 6 (CanLII)

daughter had sent to a friend. The mother became upset and picked up a skipping rope

R. v. T.F. and T.A.F.

[22]

Page

The Crown closed its case on filing the Admissions of Fact.

[23]

The accused father elected to testify in his own defence.

[24]

He is 45 years old and married to the mother. They have four children. He

described their family as a Christian family. The family attends church regularly. He is
employed as an electrician and has no criminal record.
[25]

He testified that the hand is used for compassion and love, not for discipline. As

a result of his belief he does not use his hand only when applying corporal punishment.
In other words, the father believes that an object, not the hand, must be used when
administering discipline.
[26]

He further testified that when he was young he received a lot of punishment from

his parents that ranged from groundings to spankings. He said that his father would
spank him with an orange plastic spoon. He said that his mother would also spank him.
[27]

The father testified that he had no clue that the law does allow corporal

punishment, and that he was breaking the law when he spanked his daughter. He
stated that spanking should stop at some age depending on the maturity of the child.
He stated, for example, that he would not spank a 23 year old child. He said that he
does not enjoy spanking.
[28]

After finding out about the nude messages, the father testified he discussed the

matter with his wife by telephone. They agreed that some form of discipline was

2016 BCPC 6 (CanLII)

TESTIMONY OF THE ACCUSED FATHER

R. v. T.F. and T.A.F.

Page

required. He and the daughter went to the garage of their home where they discussed
forms of discipline.
He testified that his daughter was given a choice and that she consented to being

spanked. He picked up a plastic mini hockey stick in the garage and hit his daughter on
the buttocks. He said that the amount of force he used was not unreasonable in the
circumstances. He also testified that he did not discuss with his daughter how many
blows with the stick would be applied to her. He stated that his daughter understood
what she did was wrong and that she was remorseful.
[30]

The father also testified that although his daughter was remorseful there was still

a need for punishment and some consequences.

[31]

The father said that his wife came into the garage. He talked to her about

punishment and said that their daughter had chosen a spanking. He suggested to the
mother that she should also spank their daughter. The daughter was not given another
choice at that time. The father testified he felt that because of the daughters actions
the mother should also spank her so that the daughter would get the gravity of her
actions.
[32]

The father described how the mother used the skipping rope to hit the daughters

buttocks. He said the hits were hard enough to cause some discomfort. He was not
able to say whether he or the mother used more force on the daughter.
[33]

In cross-examination the father was questioned about his reasons for

administering a spanking. He said that the daughter did not have the option of saying

2016 BCPC 6 (CanLII)

[29]

R. v. T.F. and T.A.F.

Page

no to the options presented to her. He testified that his daughters act of texting nude
pictures of herself was not an act that could go unpunished. He further testified that his

[34]

Credibility is not a significant issue in this case. The father testified in a

straightforward manner. For the most part his evidence is consistent with the Statement
of Admissions the Crown relies on in this case.
[35]

There is one troubling aspect to the fathers testimony and it relates to his denial

that the daughters two friends saw the bruising they described seeing on February 16
at the school. The accused was not present at the school when the friends looked at
the injuries they described. There is no evidence that the father looked at the
daughters buttocks at any time to see what impact the spanking administered by the
mother and himself had on her body.
[36]

The testimony of the father regarding the injuries to his daughter suggests that

he is downplaying the seriousness of the events that took place in the garage of his
home. At the very least the fathers evidence leads me to conclude that he gave little
thought, if any, to possible injuries suffered by his daughter.
THE ISSUES
1. Did the complainant consent to the application of force to her body?
2. In the circumstances of this case does s. 34 of the Criminal Code provide a
defence to the charge under s. 267(a) of the Criminal Code?
The Law Regarding Consent

2016 BCPC 6 (CanLII)

actions were not about pain, but just a form of discipline.

R. v. T.F. and T.A.F.

Page

[37]

I now turn to the first issue and the applicable law.

[38]

The parents in this case are charged pursuant to s. 267(a) of the Criminal Code

267.

Every one who, in committing an assault,

(a) carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation thereof, or

(b) causes bodily harm to the complainant,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding ten years or an offence punishable on summary conviction and
liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.
[39]

Assault is defined in s. 265 of the Criminal Code where it states:

265. (1) A person commits an assault when
(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force
intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force
to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe
on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his
purpose; or
(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation
thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.
(2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault,
sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily
harm and aggravated sexual assault.
(3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the
complainant submits or does not resist by reason of
(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other
than the complainant;
(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to
a person other than the complainant;
(c) fraud; or
(d) the exercise of authority.
(4) Where an accused alleges that he believed that the complainant
consented to the conduct that is the subject-matter of the charge, a judge,
if satisfied that there is sufficient evidence and that, if believed by the jury,
the evidence would constitute a defence, shall instruct the jury, when

2016 BCPC 6 (CanLII)

which reads as follows:

R. v. T.F. and T.A.F.

Page

reviewing all the evidence relating to the determination of the honesty of

the accuseds belief, to consider the presence or absence of reasonable
grounds for that belief.
In R. v. Stanley (1977), 36 C.C.C. (2nd) 216 (B.C.A.A.) the court held that to be

effective the consent to the assault must be freely given with appreciation of all the risks
and not merely submission to an apparently inevitable situation.
[41]

The Supreme Court of Canada also reviewed the scope and limitations of

consent in the case of R. v. Jobidon, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 714. In that case the accused was
charged with manslaughter, through the offence of assault, following a fist fight. The
trial judge held that the victims consent to a fair fight negated the offence of assault.
[42]

In Jobidon, Sopinka J. dealt with the issue of consent in relation to s. 265 of the

Code and stated:

Rather, the policy reflected in s. 265 is to make the absence of consent a
requirement in the definition of the offence but to restrict consent to those
intentional applications of force in respect of which there is a clear and
effective consent by a victim who is free of coercion or misrepresentation.
Instead of reading the words without the consent of another person out
of s. 265 I am of the opinion that the intention of Parliament is respected
by close scrutiny of the scope of consent to an assault. Instead of
attempting to evaluate the utility of the activity the trial judge will scrutinize
the consent to determine whether it applied to the very activity which is the
subject of the charge. The more serious the assault the more difficult it
should be to establish consent.
[43]

I must also take into account s. 265 (3)(d) where it states:

265.(3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the
complainant submits or does resist by reason of

(d) the exercise of authority.

ANALYSIS

2016 BCPC 6 (CanLII)

[40]

R. v. T.F. and T.A.F.

[44]

Page

10

Therefore, it is incumbent on me to carefully scrutinize the circumstances of the

application of force by both accused on the child.

The accused parents were clearly in a position of authority to the complainant.

She was their daughter and, as a result, she was dependent on their care and support.
The complainant was 14 years old and lived at home with her parents. She was also
dependent on her parents for her safety and well-being. In these circumstances, it is
my view that the defence of consent is not available to the accused. I would go further,
and suggest, that only in rare circumstances, if ever, would the defence of consent be
available to a parent who has applied force to a child.
[46]

Furthermore, I find that although the complainant chose a spanking it was not a

fully informed consent with an appreciation of all the consequences. The complainant
was not told how the discipline would be applied, what instrument would be used, and
how many blows would be used. The facts of this case are serious. The complainant
was hit with a plastic mini hockey stick by one parent and a skipping rope by another
parent. The daughter had obvious bruises on her body because of the discipline
applied by the parents.
[47]

The decision in the Jobidon case makes it clear the more serious the assault, the

more difficult it should be to establish consent. The amount of force applied, the use of
weapons, and the subsequent injuries are all aggravating circumstances that are
relevant to the determination of the seriousness of the assault. I am not satisfied that
the accused in this case have established consent as a defence to their actions.

2016 BCPC 6 (CanLII)

[45]

R. v. T.F. and T.A.F.

[48]

Page

11

I find that the Crown has established a lack of consent in all the circumstances of

this case.
I turn now to the second issue, namely, does section 34 of the Code provide a

defence in this case?

The Law Regarding s. 34 of the Criminal Code
[50]

The Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Canadian Foundation for Children,

Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 4 (CanLII) the Court found
that Section 43 of the Criminal Code does not offend s. 7 of the Charter. The Court set
out a number of considerations that apply in determining where corrective force is
reasonable.
[51]

In the Canadian Foundation case McLachlin C.J., writing for the majority of the

Court referred to the purpose of s. 43 as follows:

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.
[52]

The Court then went on to set out two limitations to the requirement that the force

be by way of correction. The Court states:

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

2016 BCPC 6 (CanLII)

[49]

R. v. T.F. and T.A.F.

Page

12

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".
[53]

It is necessary for this Court to consider all the circumstances under which the

corrective force was used.

[54]

In further reviewing the ambit of s. 34 McLachlin C.J. goes on to say:

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

2016 BCPC 6 (CanLII)

force must always be the education or discipline of the child: Ogg-Moss,

supra, at p. 193.

R. v. T.F. and T.A.F.

Page

13

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.
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.

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. .
[55]

In R. v. B.S., [2008] O.J. 975 the court dealt with a situation where the father of a

teenager used force as a corrective measure. The father took hold of his 15 year old
daughter and placed her into his vehicle to take her home. The testimony of the
daughter was that her father grabbed her and threw her into the truck. The daughter
was planning to go to a party to meet her boyfriend, who posed a threat to her.
[56]

In the B.S. case Robertson J. dealt with two issues, namely:

1. Can section 43 apply to teenagers?

2. Was the child capable of benefitting from correction?
[57]

Robertson J. reviewed the Canadian Foundation case in detail and concluded

although the Supreme Court of Canada did not absolutely prohibit the correction of

2016 BCPC 6 (CanLII)

37

R. v. T.F. and T.A.F.

Page

14

teens it does stand for the proposition that on the basis of current expert consensus s.
43 does not apply to corporal punishment of children under two or teenagers.
The court held in the B.S. case that the circumstances were exceptional. There

were no physical injuries to the child. No weapon was used and the child was not
spanked or hit in any other manner. Acting on his belief that the child was embarking
on an unsafe path Robertson J. concluded that the force used by the father was by way
of correction. The court allowed the appeal from a finding of guilt at the trial court. The
facts in the B.S. case are clearly distinguishable from the facts in this case.
[59]

It is clear that the majority of the court in the Canadian Foundation case

concluded that corporal punishment of teenagers, particularly with the use of objects or
blows or slaps to the head, is prohibited because it does not have corrective value.
ANALYSIS
[60]

The question of the application of s. 34 in this case requires a careful

examination of the relevant context in light of all the circumstances of the case.
[61]

I find the relevant circumstances to be as follows:

At the relevant time the daughter was a teenager, 14 years of age. Her 15th birthday
was several months after this incident.

The daughter was living in the home of her parents.

The father discovered that his daughter had sexted nude pictures of herself to her
boyfriend.

2016 BCPC 6 (CanLII)

[58]

R. v. T.F. and T.A.F.

Page

15

The father told his daughter as he struck her that he was doing this because he
loved her and not out of hate.

The father took his daughter to the garage of the residence where he used a plastic

The mother used a skipping rope to strike her daughter several times on her
buttocks.

The mother told her daughter that she was spanking her because she loved her.

Two days later the daughters two friends saw that her buttocks were red, swollen,
and bruised.

On February 23rd a local doctor noted that the daughters right buttock showed
healed linear bruises.

[62]

The first requirement of s. 34 is that the force be by way of correction. The

force must be intended for educative or corrective purposes as prescribed by the

majority in Canadian Foundation at paragraph 24 of the decision.
[63]

It is my finding that the force applied to the child was clearly not intended for

educative or corrective purposes. The father testified that his purpose in spanking the
daughter was for punishment. He was unable to articulate any other purpose for the
spanking.
[64]

In this day and age any reasonable parent would be concerned about a teenager

sending nude pictures of him or herself via a cell phone or any other electronic device.
The pitfalls and potential dangers of such activities are well reported. Such behaviours
can lead to bullying and even suicide as a number of very high profile cases in the last
few years have shown. To suggest that responding to such acts by a teenaged

2016 BCPC 6 (CanLII)

mini hockey stick to strike his daughter several times on her buttocks.

R. v. T.F. and T.A.F.

Page

16

daughter, (14 going on 15 years), by spanking her with an object would be educative or
corrective is simply not believable or acceptable by any measure of current social

[65]

I would go further and say that the parents reaction in this case could not

possibly be supported by expert evidence. In the Canadian Foundation case the

Supreme Court of Canada considered and detailed a number of studies and authorities
on the subject of child discipline and concluded at paragraph 40:
40 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.
[66]

The parents took no educative or corrective steps by seeking out expert help or

any other assistance to discuss their daughters actions with her. Their actions were
solely punitive and not corrective. In my view, the actions of the parents were also
degrading.
[67]

The second requirement of s. 34 is determining what is reasonable under the

circumstances in the case of child discipline.

2016 BCPC 6 (CanLII)

consensus.

R. v. T.F. and T.A.F.

[68]

Page

17

The Canadian Foundation case says that corporal punishment of teenagers is

harmful because it can induce aggressive or antisocial behaviour. In addition,

harmful. This statement is made in the context of the first line in paragraph 37 of the
decision that reads:
Based on the evidence before the Court, there are significant areas of
agreement among the experts on both sides of the issue.
[69]

Furthermore, in considering all of the circumstances in this case, I refer to the

use of weapons, namely the plastic mini hockey stick and the skipping rope, in applying
force to the complainant. I also note that she suffered injuries that, in my view, were not
of a transitory or trifling nature. The manner in which the parents used force and the
injuries that resulted, lead me to conclude that the spanking in this case amounted to
excessive corporal punishment.
[70]

The personal beliefs of the parents on the issue of child discipline, no matter how

sincerely held, cannot be used contrary to the law set out in s. 34 of the Criminal Code
and the principles set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Canadian Foundation
case. The Canadian Foundation case says that an objective rather than a subjective
test must be applied when determining what discipline is reasonable in all the
circumstances.
[71]

In conclusion, I find that the spankings were not applied for corrective purposes

and were not reasonable in all the circumstances. The defence of s. 34 is not available
to the parents in this case.

2016 BCPC 6 (CanLII)

punishment using objects such as rulers, or belts is physically and emotionally

R. v. T.F. and T.A.F.

[72]

Page

18

I find that the Crown has established the elements of the charge in this case

THE HONOURABLE JUDGE E.F. DE WALLE

2016 BCPC 6 (CanLII)

beyond any reasonable doubt and I find both accused guilty as charged.