3 ms·

The source seems to be 79 (3) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 [1]. I'm not a lawyer, but from my reading, it seems like specifying an

The source seems to be 79 (3) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 [1]. I'm not a lawyer, but from my reading, it seems like specifying an age actually narrows the law. It's more like a maximum than a minimum: --- Leaving child unattended (3) No person having charge of a child less than sixteen years of age shall leave the child without making provision for his or her supervision and care that is reasonable in the circumstances. ---- Having read through a bunch of this stuff to find the law in question, things actually look pretty reasonable. If there's a problem, it seems it would be with the application or interpretation of the law by the bureaucracy or the courts. Legislation can correct those things, but I guess my point is that it looks reasonable, so there's no obvious easy fix. [1] https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c11 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c11

ghaff 9y ago
That seems like a rational reading. "that is reasonable in the circumstances" may be ambiguous and in the eye of the beholder. But it certainly suggests that a normal 16 year old doesn't need to be automatically under constant adult supervision at all times. ADDED: This may or may not be the correct reading, but I take that as saying you can't kick your 15 year old out of the house and tell them you're on your own.