No, it does not. As you've alluded to, in 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada read in a series of limitations as to what would constitute reasonable correction. When it upheld section 43, it made clear in that decision that, in the case of teachers, corporal punishment of any kind is not included in section 43, only forms of restraint in cases, for instance, of protecting themselves or other students. In the case of parents, the use of instruments, blows or strikes to the head, physical discipline of children under two or teenagers were all read out of the ambit of section 43.
The only slight caveat is that, with respect to, for instance, grabbing a child if they are about to run out onto the street, it's not my view that it would be criminalized if section 43 was repealed. There would still be necessity defences in the case of an immediate action to protect a child, but the example that I gave of a strike, for instance, to the leg of a child resisting in a car seat would be within the ambit of section 265 and would not be captured. However, the more horrendous examples that you gave have indeed been read out.
I have reviewed the case law since the Canadian Foundation case was decided, and we simply do not see courts today upholding the kinds of egregious abuse that they did prior to 2004.