Even the decision upholding Section 43 narrowed the defence it preserved.
Evidence
First: the Canadian Foundation case demonstrates the constitutional ceiling of the “reasonable correction” defence’s reach. Even the majority that upheld Section 43 found itself compelled to impose substantial limits — no implements, no head blows, no young children, no force that produces lasting effect. The “reasonable correction” that the majority preserved is a significantly narrower concept than the “reasonable correction” that existed in 1892, when Section 43 was first codified. The defence has been constrained at its core even by the decision that upheld it. — , The Rod and the Child, 9311