214

Definitions

214 In this Part,

abandon or expose includes

(a) a wilful omission to take charge of a child by a person who is under a legal duty to do so, and

(b) dealing with a child in a manner that is likely to leave that child exposed to risk without protection; (abandonner ou exposer)

aircraft[Repealed, 2018, c. 21, s. 13]

child[Repealed, 2002, c. 13, s. 9]

form of marriage includes a ceremony of marriage that is recognized as valid

(a) by the law of the place where it was celebrated, or

(b) by the law of the place where an accused is tried, notwithstanding that it is not recognized as valid by the law of the place where it was celebrated; (formalité de mariage)

guardian includes a person who has in law or in fact the custody or control of a child. (tuteur)

operate[Repealed, 2018, c. 21, s. 13]

vessel[Repealed, 2018, c. 21, s. 13]

Annotations | French

  • Section 214

     

  • The term “guardian” in Section 214 can include:

     

  • Factors that Favour Finding that an Accused Was a “Guardian” of a Child

     

  • Some factors that favour finding that an accused was the guardian of a child include:

     

    • (1) Living in the same house as the child;

       

    • (2) Recognizing the child as their “own”;

       

    • (3) Voluntarily caring for the child: R v Bakker, 2017 ONSC 5924 at para 199.

       

  • Section 214 does not exhaustively define the terms “abandon” and “expose.” The ordinary grammatical meanings of these words remain relevant in their interpretation.: R v H (AD), 2013 SCC 28 at paras 43—46.

     

  • “Abandon” has been defined as the following in past decisions:

     

    • (1) “Cease to support or look after (someone); desert”: R v H (AD), 2013 SCC 28 at para 43.

       

    • (2) “To give up to another’s control or mercy, or to forsake a person”: R v R (J), [2000] OJ No 6073 (Ont Ct J) at para 25.

       

    • (3) “To forsake, leave or desert. To leave without one’s presence, help or support”: R v R (J), [2000] OJ No 6073 (Ont Ct J) at para 26.

       

  • “Expose” has been defined as the following in past decisions:

     

    • (1) “[To] cause someone to be vulnerable or at risk”: R v H (AD), 2013 SCC 28 at para 44.

       

    • (2) “[To] leave (a child) in the open to die”: R v H (AD), 2013 SCC 28 at para 44.

       

  • Additionally, Court has attributed the following meanings for “abandon”in past decisions:

     

    • (1) “Abandon” can mean “[a] wilful omission to take charge of the child, or some mode of dealing with it calculated to leave it without proper care” that “indicates such disregard of the welfare of the infant as would shew [show] the parent to be unfit to have it given again into his charge”: Davis, Re, [1909] OJ No 43, (Ont Chambers) at para 14; R v Bokane-Haraszt, 2007 ONCJ 228 at para 16; R v Wong, 2015 MBPC 8 at para 37—38.

       

    • (2) “Leaving a child to its fate”: R v Reedy (No 2) (1981), 60 CCC (2d) 104, (Ont Dist Ct) at para 6; R v H (AD), 2013 SCC 28 at para 46; R v Wong, 2015 MBPC 8 at para 35.

       

  • Both the statutory definition and the ordinary meanings of of “abandon” and “expose” pursuant to s. 215 show that a person abandoning or exposing a child must be aware of or reckless as to the risk this poses to the child: R v H (AD), 2013 SCC 28 at para 46.

     

  • A person can “abandon” a child even if they only intend to leave the child temporarily unattended. For example, a mother who intended to leave her 15-month-old child unattended in a vehicle in a parking garage in -14oC weather and return to the child after several hours of playing bingo nearby was found to have abandoned the child: R v Holzer (1988), 4 WCB (2d) 314, 1988 CarswellAlta 279 (Alta QB) at paras 4, 11 and 15; R v Whalen, 2001 NWTSC 63 at para 31.

     

  • Definition: “Willful Omission”

     

  • “Willful” in the context of child abandonment or exposure means “deliberate or purposeful conduct with full knowledge of” or “reckless of or indifferent to the consequences of [their] act of omission” or “a callous disregard” or “a complete and utter disregard for the safety of children”: R v Reedy (No 2) (1981), 60 CCC (2d) 104 (Ont Dist Ct) at para 8.

     

  • A person’s “willful omission” to take charge of a child is only abandonment or exposure under section 214’s statutory definitions if the person has a legal duty to take charge of the child: R v H (AD), 2013 SCC 28 at para 68.

     

  • Overview: “Take Charge”

     

  • A parent of a child has a legal duty to “take charge” of the child: R v J (GK), 2006 ABPC 72 at para 21.

     

Tags