Principals and Criminal Investigations of Students: Recent Developments
Keywords:
student rights, Young Offenders Act, school lawAbstract
Educators’ legal authority over their pupils has traditionally relied upon the common law doctrine of in loco parentis. Modern jurisprudence, however, has recognized, and in some cases preferred, an alternative theory of legal authority based upon a statutory duty to maintain proper order and discipline. Thus has arisen a duality in the legal characterization of educators’ legal personality. They are at once surrogate parents and state agents. In law, the distinction between the two roles is often significant, especially in the exercise of discipline over pupils. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Young Offenders Act have served to bring the distinction to the fore as courts probe the extent of educators’ legal obligations as state agents in executing their duty. This paper examines critically three recent cases involving the powers and obligations of principals investigating criminal conduct in their schools.
Metrics
References
Blackstone. Commentaries on the Laws of England (Vol. 1), 1765.
Constitution Act, 1982, as enacted by the Canada Act, 1982 (U.K.), c. 11 (the Charter, Part 1).
Constitution of the United States. American Bill of Rights. 1789.
Criminal Code. R. S. C. 1985, c. C-46.
Education Act. R. S. O. 1980, c. 129.
Hogg, P. W. (1985). Constitutional Law of Canada (2nd ed.). Toronto: Carswell.
Jaffe, P., Leschied, A., & Farthing, J. (1987). Youths’ knowledge and attitudes about the Young Offenders Act Does anyone care what they think? Canadian Journal of Criminology, 29, 309–316.
MacKay, A. W. (1984). Education Law in Canada. Toronto: Emond-Montgomery.
Murdock v. Richards, [1954] 1 D. L. R. 766 (N. S. S. C.).
Myers and Myers v. Peel County Board of Education and Jowett (1981), 37 N. R. 227 (S.C. C.).
New Jersey v. T. L. O. (1985) 105 S. Ct. 733.
Principal ruled at fault in drug seizure case. London Free Press (1985, September 5), p. A-2.
R. v. A. B. (1986), 13 O. A. C. 68 (C. A.).
R. v. Dimmell (1980), 55 C. C. C. (2d) 239.
R. v. H. (1985), 43 Alta. L. R. (2d) 250.
R. v. J. M. G. (1984). Unreported. Ontario Provincial Court (Family Division-Judicial District of Thunder Bay). Kunnas, J., 1984 August 29.
R. v. J. M. G. (1986), 56 O. R. (2d) 705 (C. A.).
R. v. L. L. (1985). Unreported. Ontario Provincial Court (Family Division-Judicial District of Ottawa-Carleton). Michel, J., 1985 June 26.
R. v. L. L. (1986). Unreported. Ontario District Court (Judicial District of Ottawa-Carleton). Mercier, J., 1986 April.
R. v. M. H. (1986). Unreported. Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (Judicial District of Edmonton). Duchene, J., 1986 July 11.
R. v. Rothman (1981), 42 C. C. C. (2d) 377 (Ont. C. A.); (1981), 121 D. L. R. (3d) 578 (S.C. C.).
R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S. C. R. 613.
Thornton, Tanner, et al. v. Board of School Trustees of School District No. 57 (Prince George). Edamura and Harrower, [1975] 3 W. W. R. 622 (B. C. S. C.).
Tougher penalties suggested for wife beaters. (1986, December 4). Toronto Star, p. A10.
Young Offenders Act R. S.C. 1985, c. Y-1.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The Canadian Journal of Education follows Creative Commons Licencing CC BY-NC-ND.
