 |
| John L. Hill |
Should a parent be civilly and criminally liable for the actions of their unsupervised offspring? The guilty verdict in the Pennsylvania courtroom has shocked many observers in the United States. Could the same result happen in Canada?
A 1979 Ontario case sounds very much like the Crumbley jury in a matter that came before it (Floyd et. Al v. Bowers et al., 27 O.R. (2d) 487), a case where a youth had discharged an air rifle, injuring another child: ”Regardless of the type or appearance of the air rifle used, the appellants knew it was a dangerous weapon. It and its ammunition were left readily accessible to their son who, it might be expected, in view of the nature of young boys as well as the finding by the trial judge, on the evidence, as to the character of this particular boy, would be attracted by the rifle. Their prohibition against his unsupervised use of the rifle was, in the circumstances as found by the trial Judge, meaningless.”
Since the year 2000, Ontario has adopted the Parental Responsibility Act. The legislation is similar to earlier legislation in Manitoba. Parents can be held financially liable for intentional damage caused by their minor children.
The desire to hold parents responsible has run deep in Canadian jurisprudence. Although neither the Criminal Code nor the Young Offenders Act authorized holding parents accountable when, through parental acts or omissions, a third party suffered harm, there was a case under the predecessor legislation, the Juvenile Delinquents Act, that was used to impose sanctions on the parents (Re S. (A.C.) (1969), 7 C.R.N.S. 42 affd. by Regina v. Snarch (1969), 7 D.L.R. (3d) 62 (Q. Sup.Ct.)). The legislative authority for such an order disappeared when the 1984 Young Offenders Act replaced the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
To some extent, simply holding parents liable for their children’s misdeeds was considered a knee-jerk reaction to a complex problem. Queen’s University professor Nicholas Bala argued in his book, Young Offenders Law, that holding parents liable simply aggravated what was likely to disturb relationships within a family that was already facing stressors.
The 2000 Ontario legislation was introduced supposedly as a response to the Mike Harris Conservative government's commitment to improving community safety but pandering to societal pressure to get tough on crime. The Attorney General at the time, Jim Flaherty, announced, "The Parental Responsibility Act reinforces our government's belief that people must demonstrate respect for others and take responsibility for harmful actions. This is an important lesson that young people must learn."
Bala, in his book, doubted that imposing penalties on parents would serve to reduce crime. Indeed, he suggested, such laws may exacerbate some family situations and lead to further criminal acts being committed.
Shortly after Ontario introduced its legislation, Michelle Roy’s article When All Else Fails, Blame the Parents: An Analysis of Parental Responsibility Laws in Canada made the case for avoiding such laws. She argued, “Opponents of parental responsibility laws focus on the social realities of the youth that typically commit a crime. A disproportionate number of young delinquents come from economically disadvantaged families, frequently single-parent homes. Parents in these families cannot afford to pay damages or heavy fines, and often it is the family's economic position which may have encouraged the child to commit an illegal act. Although existing Canadian parental responsibility acts do not impose criminal responsibility on parents, imposing a custodial sentence on a child's parent would only hurt everyone in the end. Incarcerating a parent would lead to less supervision and control of children, which some argue is at the root of youth delinquency.”
As in 2000, we are once again in a political climate where those advocating a “get tough on crime” approach will likely prevail. The Crumbley case may simply foreshadow a demand for a similar approach throughout Canada.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.