R. v. Wilcox, (1985) 60 A.R. 122 (ProvCt)
|Court:||Provincial Court (Alberta)|
|Case Date:||February 14, 1985|
|Citations:||(1985), 60 A.R. 122 (ProvCt)|
R. v. Wilcox (1985), 60 A.R. 122 (ProvCt)
MLB headnote and full text
R. ex rel Balfour v. Wilcox
Indexed As: R. v. Wilcox
Alberta Provincial Court
February 14, 1985.
A father was charged under the School Act after his daughter failed, without lawful excuse, to attend school. The father pleaded guilty. The Alberta Provincial Court suspended the father's sentence without bond with a shorter period fixed at one day.
Education - Topic 744
Education authorities - School commissions or boards - Powers respecting students - Place of instruction - The Alberta Provincial Court held that a local school board had no authority under the School Act to decide whether a pupil should be educated in school, rather than by a tutor - The court held that three forms of education were lawful in Alberta: public schooling, private schooling and tutorage - The Superintendent or Departmental Inspector have jurisdiction only respecting certification of the chosen tutorage, but cannot refuse certification on the ground that in their opinion schooling would be better for the child rather than tutorage - See paragraph 10.
Education - Topic 5116
Students - Attendance - Offences - Truancy - Sentence - A parent was charged under s. 181 of the School Act respecting the truancy of his child - The school board had refused to certify the tutorage program chosen by the parent, because it felt the child should be in school, and thus acted without jurisdiction - The Alberta Provincial Court held that although the parent was technically guilty, the board acted wrongly in insisting that the child be in school - The court thus suspended the parent's sentence without bond with a shorter period fixed at one day - See paragraph 14.
Education - Topic 5116
Students - Attendance - Offences - Truancy - Prosecution - The Alberta Provincial Court noted that it appeared that only the chief school attendance officer of a large school board had authority to prosecute truancy cases - See paragraph 5.
R. v. Jones, sub nom. R. ex rel Bach v. Jones, 43 A.R. 64; 25 Alta. L.R.(2d) 359 (Alta. Prov. Ct.), revsd. on other grounds, 13 C.C.C.(3d) 261 (Alta. C.A.), consd. [para. 5].
R. v. Jones, sub nom. R. ex rel Bach v. Jones, 49 A.R. 135; 29 Alta. L.R.(2d) 353 (Alta. Prov. Ct.), consd. [para. 10].
School Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. S-3, sect. 142 [para. 3]; sect. 143 [para. 3]; sect. 143(1)(a) [paras. 10, 13]; sect. 180 [para. 3]; sect. 180(2) [para. 5]; sect. 181 [para. 3].
V. Russell, for the prosecutor, John A. Balfour;
No counsel for the accused.
This matter was heard before Fitch, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, whose decision was delivered at Calgary, Alberta, on February 14, 1985.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP