'@#$%^&*' Conviction for swearing in school.

• Author: Eleanor Doctor

Facts

A student was reported to the school principal for chasing another student down the hallway and shouting loudly, "son of a whore". The principal intervened and placed the student under the supervision of a teacher. The student left the classroom without permission and was found in another part of the school with his mother. A meeting was held to discuss school suspensions for the student. Suddenly, the student became violent, made threatening gestures at the principal, struck the wall and uttered obscenities, the word F__predominating, at the principal. The student's mother prevented an assault on the principal by stepping between him and her son. The student then left the office and continued down the hallway shouting similar obscenities and striking the doors and walls. He was charged under s. 175 of the Criminal Code which prohibits causing a disturbance in or near a public place by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language.

Decision

In the circumstances, of this case, was the principal's office a public place?

The principal's office could be a public place but not in circumstances such as this where it was being used as a private place for disciplinary purposes and the public had no access to it. The school corridors, however, were a public place as they were accessible to the public and the principal's office was near this public place.

Did the words uttered by the student constitute swearing?

The language used by the student constituted swearing defined as the use of bad or profane or obscene language to condemn a person or object, whether or not the language invoked the deity or something sacred.

Did the student create a disturbance in or near a public place?

For the purpose of characterizing "disturbance", the Court adopted the following expansive approach which had been approved of by the Supreme Court of Canada;

1. an externally manifested disturbance of the public peace, in the sense of the interference with the ordinary and customary use of the premises by the public; the disturbance may consist of the impugned act or may flow as a consequence of the impugned act; and

2. It must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the accused's actions.

It was held that the loud swearing of the student would have constituted a disturbance in and near a public place for the purpose of the Criminal Code, even if it resulted in only a momentary distraction of the two custodians who were in...