**R v Dupperon (1984): son caught smoking, bad language, ran away from home; dad straps butt with leather belt ~10 times, leaving bruises --- wasn’t reasonable here! force is allowed under s 43 of the CCC if it is within reason s 43 is determined by Canadian social standards, not of the accused (R v Baptiste) may use minimal force on teenagers for protection, rather than correction (R v Swan) educators may be permitted to use force under s 43, if reasonable (R v Wetmore) TEST for discipline (Cdn Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada (AG)) used for a corrective purpose child must be capable of understanding why force is being used s 43 doesn’t apply if force harms, or could be expected to harm, a child is cruel or degrading used on teenagers, bc shown to not work teachers use force as punishment ALSO… captains, pilots, etc. have common law right to use force to maintain order & discipline (King v Fanklin) Defence of Authority (MORE) Defences for Protection of Persons 3 key questions: did D have legal authority to undertake act? was D legally privileged, ie protected from civil/crim liability? – pg 268 did D meet all obligations imposed on him/him? CCC s 494 (1) anyone can make an arrest suspicion isn’t sufficient, has to be a strong and honest belief (R v Storrey) law changed to “reasonable time” R v Chen: grocer finds repeat thief, =/= finds committing, used legal fiction to let Chen off “finds commiting” is interpreted broadly, means “apparently finds committing” R v Biron – constable arrests D and hands off to peace officer Charter s 24(1) gives judges discretion to award “appropriate and just” remedy 4 part TEST for awarding damages: Vancouver v Ward [2010]) P establishes Charter violated Damage must advance Charter goals state may attempt to establish a countervailing factor the amount of the damage should reflect its purpose (compensation, vindication, or deterrence) Charter s 52 establishes constitutional supremacy, therefore may eliminate basis for person’s defence of legal authority Rights & Obligations in the Arrest Process: Reasons for the Arrest
(a) a newspaper or other publication, or the services of a broadcasting undertaking, the plaintiff must establish that his or her name or portrait was used specifically in connection with material relating to the readership, circulation or qualities of the newspaper or other publication, or to the audience, services or qualities of the broadcasting undertaking, as the case may be, and (b) goods or services on account of the use of the name or portrait of the other in a radio or television program relating to current or historical events or affairs, or other matters of public interest, that is sponsored or promoted by or on behalf of the makers, distributors, vendors or suppliers of the goods or services, the plaintiff must establish that his or her name or portrait was used specifically in connection with material relating to the goods or services, or to their manufacturers, distributors, vendors or suppliers. 5 Action does not survive death An action or right of action for a violation of privacy or for the unauthorized use of the name or portrait of another for the purposes stated in this Act is extinguished by the death of the person whose privacy is alleged to have been violated or whose name or portrait is alleged to have been used without authority BC INFANTS ACT 17 Consent of infant to medical treatment (1) In this section: "health care" means anything that is done for a therapeutic, preventive, palliative, diagnostic, cosmetic or health related purpose, and includes a course of health care; "health care provider" includes a person licensed, certified or registered in British Columbia to provide health care. (2) Subject to subsection (3), an infant may consent to health care whether or not that health care would, in the absence of consent, constitute a trespass to the infant's person, and if an infant provides that consent, the consent is effective and it is not necessary to obtain a consent to the health care from the infant's parent or guardian. (3) A request for or consent, agreement or acquiescence to health care by an infant does not constitute consent to the health care for the purposes of subsection (2) unless the health care provider providing the health care has explained to the infant and has been satisfied that the infant understands the nature and consequences and the reasonably foreseeable benefits and of the health care, and (c) has made reasonable efforts to determine and has concluded that the health care is in the infant's best interests. 4 BC CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ACT 29 Child who needs necessary health care