Judgment of the Court
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
Whether the Ontario Court of Appeal erred in holding that a Mental Retardation Counsellor charged with the daily care of profoundly mentally retarded persons are [sic] not in the place of a parent vis-à-vis these persons;
[Page 179]
whether the Ontario Court of Appeal erred in holding that a profoundly retarded person with the physical age of twenty-one and the mental age of five is not a “child” for the purposes of the application of Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada;
whether the Ontario Court of Appeal erred in holding that a Mental Retardation Counsellor charged with training mentally retarded persons in basic life skills are [sic] not schoolteachers and their charges not pupils in the circumstances of an institution for the mentally retarded;
whether the Ontario Court of Appeal erred in not ordering a new trial, having concluded that Section 43 of the Criminal Code had no application;
that the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law by basing their decision on a question of fact alone, when the jurisdiction of that Honourable Court was one of appeal restricted to questions of law alone, pursuant to Section 771(1) of the Criminal Code.