5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Rights of the Child (6:VI)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Rights of the Child (6:VI) (view source)
Revision as of 22:12, 25 August 2020
, 22:12, 25 August 2020no edit summary
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
=== 2. Discipline === | === 2. Discipline === | ||
The ''Criminal Code'' (s 43) allows a school teacher to use discipline that is reasonable in the circumstances. This section refers to the use of The Criminal Code (s 43) allows a schoolteacher to use discipline that is reasonable in the circumstances. This section refers to the use of reasonable force. The definition of reasonable force is “the substantial social consensus on what is reasonable correction supported by comprehensive and consistent expert evidence on what is reasonable”. Please see ''Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada'', 2004 SCC 4. However, the School Act specifically states that discipline of a student must be similar to that of a kind, firm, and judicious parent, but must not include corporal punishment (s 76(3)). | The ''Criminal Code'' (s 43) allows a school teacher to use discipline that is reasonable in the circumstances. This section refers to the use of The Criminal Code (s 43) allows a schoolteacher to use discipline that is reasonable in the circumstances. This section refers to the use of reasonable force. The definition of reasonable force is “the substantial social consensus on what is reasonable correction supported by comprehensive and consistent expert evidence on what is reasonable”. Please see ''Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada'', 2004 SCC 4. However, the School Act specifically states that discipline of a student must be similar to that of a kind, firm, and judicious parent, but must not include corporal (physical) punishment (s 76(3)). | ||
=== 3. Rights of Parents and Students === | === 3. Rights of Parents and Students === | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
''Moore v British Columbia (Education)'', 2012 SCC 61 at para 36 determined that the BC government had discriminated against a dyslexic boy when it cut the special needs program during a financial crisis. The Supreme Court of Canada found that he was denied a service customarily available to the public. The service denied was meaningful access to education generally, not specific access to a special needs program. Discrimination was found because the cuts disproportionately affected special needs programs and there was no evidence that the BC government considered other options. | ''Moore v British Columbia (Education)'', 2012 SCC 61 at para 36 determined that the BC government had discriminated against a dyslexic boy when it cut the special needs program during a financial crisis. The Supreme Court of Canada found that he was denied a service customarily available to the public. The service denied was meaningful access to education generally, not specific access to a special needs program. Discrimination was found because the cuts disproportionately affected special needs programs and there was no evidence that the BC government considered other options. | ||
Parents are jointly and | Parents are jointly and severally liable for intentional or negligent damage to school property caused by their children (s 10). There is no action against a school board or its employees unless the actionable conduct included dishonesty, gross negligence, malicious or wilful misconduct, or the cause of action is libel or slander (s 94(2)). Note section 94 limits liability, but does not absolve a board from vicarious liability. | ||
Any person who believes a child, whether registered or not, is not enrolled in an educational program can make a report to the superintendent of schools (s 14(1)). An action lies against that person only if the report is made maliciously (s 14(3)). | Any person who believes a child, whether registered or not, is not enrolled in an educational program can make a report to the superintendent of schools (s 14(1)). An action lies against that person only if the report is made maliciously (s 14(3)). | ||
School boards have a duty to provide an educational environment that is free from discriminatory harassment. This rule was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada on October 20, 2005, when it | School boards have a duty to provide an educational environment that is free from discriminatory harassment. This rule was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada on October 20, 2005, when it dismissed an application for leave to appeal from a BC Human Rights Tribunal finding of discrimination against a BC school board relating to the homophobic harassment of one of its students (see ''North Vancouver School District No 44 v Jubran'', [2005] SCCA No 260 at paras 91–102 and North Vancouver School District No 44 v Jubran, 2005 BCCA 201 at paras 91–102). Note that while the student was found to have been discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation, it was irrelevant whether he identified himself as homosexual, or whether his harassers knew or believed him to be homosexual. | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
=== 1. Obligation to Provide Treatment === | === 1. Obligation to Provide Treatment === | ||
The ''Criminal Code'' (s 215) imposes criminal sanctions on parents who fail to provide their children with the necessaries of life until they reach the age of 16. This has been held to include adequate medical treatment, and a court may also extend the duty to an older child who cannot become independent of their parent(s) due to factors including age and illness. Section 218 of the ''Criminal Code'' imposes criminal sanctions on any person who abandons or exposes a child less than 10 years of age to the risk of permanent injury, damage to | The ''Criminal Code'' (s 215) imposes criminal sanctions on parents who fail to provide their children with the necessaries of life until they reach the age of 16. This has been held to include adequate medical treatment, and a court may also extend the duty to an older child who cannot become independent of their parent(s) due to factors including age and illness. Section 218 of the ''Criminal Code'' imposes criminal sanctions on any person who abandons or exposes a child less than 10 years of age to the risk of permanent injury, damage to their health, or risk to their life. | ||
Under the ''Child Family and Community Service Act'', children under the age of 19 may be removed if they are deprived of necessary medical attention, but only by a court order (s 29). Where a child is removed, emergency medical care can be given at the Director’s authorization (s 32). In cases where the only issue is the parents’ refusal of necessary medical attention, the Director can apply for a court order authorizing the medical care without removing the child from the parents’ custody (s 29). | Under the ''Child Family and Community Service Act'', children under the age of 19 may be removed if they are deprived of necessary medical attention, but only by a court order (s 29). Where a child is removed, emergency medical care can be given at the Director’s authorization (s 32). In cases where the only issue is the parents’ refusal of necessary medical attention, the Director can apply for a court order authorizing the medical care without removing the child from the parents’ custody (s 29). | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
=== 2. Consent to Treatment === | === 2. Consent to Treatment === | ||
In Canadian case law, the courts have found that a minor can consent to treatment as a “mature minor” if that particular person has the mental capacity to understand the nature and risks of that particular treatment (see also ''Infants Act'', s 17). A minor, who is living away from home, working, or married, may be found to be autonomous, and free from parental control, and thus capable of consenting to or refusing treatment on | In Canadian case law, the courts have found that a minor can consent to treatment as a “mature minor” if that particular person has the mental capacity to understand the nature and risks of that particular treatment (see also ''Infants Act'', s 17). A minor, who is living away from home, working, or married, may be found to be autonomous, and free from parental control, and thus capable of consenting to or refusing treatment on their own behalf. | ||
Under the ''Infants Act'', (s 17), a minor can consent to surgical, medical, mental, or dental treatment without the agreement of their parents, so long as the health care provider has: | Under the ''Infants Act'', (s 17), a minor can consent to surgical, medical, mental, or dental treatment without the agreement of their parents, so long as the health care provider has: | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= July | {{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= July 22, 2020}} | ||
{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}} | {{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}} | ||
