I'd just like to add that what we're seeing in judgments involving the application of section 43 across the country are alternative grounds. In other words, section 43 will be used as a main defence. If that doesn't work, a party may then consider that the de minimis defence may apply in the circumstances. There's also the lawful defence, under section 34, which may apply in a case in which an individual is protecting a child involved in an altercation with another child.
What we're seeing is really a kind of escalator defence, in which section 43 is, in a way, the first step, the main defence. If section 43 can't be argued, there are other means such as provincial statutes and school services regulations. So defences can be viewed as constituting a kind of escalator, as it were.