Editor’s Note: This case was edited by the Court for publication and has been anonymized to protect vulnerable individuals.

Facts
In May 2023, an incident occurred in a grade 8 classroom of Sakku School in Coral Harbour, Nunavut. Michelle Wolf (the Teacher) was teaching grade 8 math when a grade 7 student (the Student) entered the classroom to retrieve his hat. While in the classroom, another student with whom the Student had difficult relations took the hat and ran away. A chase ensued, with the students running around the classroom, including on top of desks, impacting other students. The Teacher went to the hallway to call for help, but nobody came.

The Teacher went back into the classroom. The boys didn’t stop. The Teacher reached out and grabbed the Student’s hoodie by the waist to stop him, hurting his neck. The Teacher had no intention of hurting the Student. There was no other way she could stop the students from chasing each other in the classroom. The Student said he was going to tell the principal. The Teacher told him to go ahead.

The Student reported the incident to the principal. Months later, after discussing the incident with another teacher, police officers became involved.

Cause of Action
The Teacher was charged with one count of assault on the Student contrary to Section 266 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46.

The Teacher’s defence was based on Section 43 of the Criminal Code, which justifies a schoolteacher’s use of force on a pupil to correct behaviour. The use of force must be reasonable under the circumstances for the defence to be available.

Legal Issue
The legal issue was whether the Teacher was guilty of criminal assault. Determination of the issue involved consideration of whether the Teacher was permitted to use force for a corrective purpose, and whether the force used was reasonable in the circumstances.

Decision
The Teacher was found not guilty of the charge against her. The Court was satisfied that the Teacher’s action was undertaken for a corrective purpose and was reasonable in the circumstances.

Reasons

Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof
In a criminal trial, it is essential for a trial judge to bear in mind four fundamental legal concepts: presumption of innocence, burden of proof, reasonable doubt and assessment of evidence (R. v. M.V., 2025 NUCJ 10 at paras 14-19). At trial, an accused does not have to prove anything, testify or call evidence. The presumption of innocence remains throughout the trial and is only defeated when the Crown satisfies the court that the accused committed each essential element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt (R. v. Oakes, (1986) 24 C.C.C. (3d) 321 at paras 32-35).

Reasonable doubt is based upon reason and common sense arising logically from the evidence (or absence of evidence). Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is closer to absolute certainty than it is to probable or likely guilt (R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40 at para 242).

Assessment of Evidence
Evidence presented at trial must be considered carefully and with an open mind. The court decides the evidence to rely upon and may accept some, none, or all of it (R. v. Abram, 2005 CarswellOnt 8197 at para 31). The court must consider the cumulative effect of the evidence (R. v. Knezevic, 2016 ONCA 914 at paras 30-32).

Defence of a Person in Authority
In this case, it was not necessary to determine whether the Teacher intentionally applied force upon the Student. It was conceded. The Teacher admitted to pulling on his hoodie sweater, raising the defence of a person in authority.

Under section 43 of the Criminal Code, every schoolteacher is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil in their care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable in the circumstances. Section 43 is a justification section forming part of the Code since 1892, exonerating an accused where circumstances justify or excuse the impugned conduct. It only applies to the “mildest forms of assault” being a sober, reasoned use of force for the purpose of education or discipline.

When considering the applicability of section 43, a physical assault by a teacher is justifiable only if the intention was correction and the discipline was reasonable under the circumstances (R. v. McSweeney, 1993 CanLII 2839 (NWTSC) at paras 9-10). For the defence to succeed, the force must have been used for education or discipline. The trial judge must assess whether the force used was reasonable in the circumstances.

Here, the Teacher’s testimony made the most sense to the trial judge, who was convinced that she acted to stop the Student from running in her class. She admitted to pulling on his hoodie sweater because she had no choice. There was no evidence that she acted in anger or frustration. She did what she thought was reasonable to stop the situation.

The Teacher was lawfully permitted to apply force on the Student for a corrective purpose. In the Court’s view, the force used was reasonable in the circumstance.

R. v. Wolf, 2025 NUCJ 12 (Nunavut Court of Justice).

Authored by Anna Zadunayski LLB, MSc.

"As a school administrator, Pendulum Law is an extraordinarily valuable resource to all K–12 school leaders. As a principal, I am often confronted with complex and ambiguous situations that contain serious legal implications. While principals are expected to be aware of certain components of Education law, we are by no means experts in the field; however, the researchers at Pendulum Law are exactly that!  The writers and researchers at Pendulum Law never fail to provide important legal insights and updates, which are always presented in a condensed and easy-to-read format. 

Each Pendulum Law publication contains important and relevant (Canadian) legal cases involving a variety of perspectives—school leaders, teachers, students, school boards, lawyers and families. I cannot recommend the Pendulum Law subscription enough, whether it's for your own professional learning, division collaborative time, or aspiring leaders." 

David Hurley, B.P.E., B.Ed., M.Ed., Ed.D.