Canadian teachers’ unions asked the federal justice minister not to repeal a controversial legal defence that sometimes allows parents and teachers to use physical force against children, the IJF has learned.

The Canadian Teachers’ Federation (CTF) met earlier this year with Justice Minister Sean Fraser to discuss Section 43 of the Criminal Code, according to lobbying records and a briefing note the IJF obtained through its Open By Default database.

Section 43 is a defence that allows parents, guardians and schoolteachers to legally use "reasonable" physical force against children without it being considered criminal assault.

The January 2026 briefing note said the CTF was against a “complete repeal” of Section 43 because it “could compromise teachers’ ability to maintain safety and security in schools and put teachers at risk of criminal liability.”

Adrienne Montani, executive director of the First Call Child and Youth Advocacy Society in Vancouver, said she and other advocates have been trying to repeal the law for decades.

“The way Section 43 now stands is unconscionable, because it’s the only law that says you can hit kids,” Montani said.

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has long called on Canada to repeal the law, arguing the defence is too broad. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission also recommended the government abandon the law in 2015.

The law’s defenders have been teachers, who worry that repealing the law without making other changes could open up educators to assault charges.

Montani said there have been cases where teachers and principals have used Section 43 as a legal defence after intervening in situations where students were endangering themselves or others.

“I’m very aware that the level of violence in some schools has escalated over the last number of years and it’s not easy to be a teacher under those circumstances,” Montani said.

Still, Montani argues Section 43 in its current form offers far too broad a defence.

A 2004 Supreme Court decision narrowed its use to children aged 2 to 12. It also said use of force should be “transitory and trifling.”

That decision also stipulated discipline cannot be motivated by anger or retaliation, something Montani said is essentially impossible for prosecutors to prove.

“I just found it bizarre that Supreme Court judges would come up with this kind of language that is really unenforceable,” Montani said.

The CTF declined to provide an interview. In response to questions, CTF spokesperson Nika Quintao said the union “will not be participating in this story and will not be providing additional comments.”

An October 2025 proposal from the union said it has advocated for the creation of what it called a “Safe Schools Amendment.”

It would offer a defence to schoolteachers, education workers and other students intervening to stop a student from causing “bodily or emotional harm” to themselves or others.

“Without such protective language, educators may not only be reluctant to intervene but also advised to avoid intervening,” the note said.

Federal lobbying records indicate the CTF communicated with Fraser in February about the issue. Since then, the union has also contacted two other MPs and two senators to discuss reforms related to the Criminal Code section that deals with assault.

More Briefs

Tech, power and construction companies seek data centre friendly policies in Ontario

B.C. premier-designate’s new chief of staff is a former lobbyist

Oil advocacy group wants say in Manitoba’s review of petroleum production incentives

Calgary foundation’s $3.5M loan to director's company provided 'undue benefit': CRA