The caveat of that rule is it's mainly applied if the child under 16 actually causes damage, is incapable of being alone (i.e. tends to be reckless, throws a major party, etc.) than it's the parents fault. It's a real 'cover your bum' policy by the Province. If your child is mature enough, you've taken reasonable pre-caution for safety, doesn't injure someone/themselves, etc., it's allowable without 'consequence' by the Ministry to be alone under 16. There is no minimum number.Piro21 wrote: ↑Sep 5th, 2017 6:39 pmApparently there is an answer to this: http://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publ ... n/144e.pdf
Ontario considers it 'child neglect' if you let your kid stay unsupervised anywhere below they're old enough to drive. As ridiculous as that is, the Children's Aid Society can legally kidnap them and imprison you for letting them go anywhere alone (including staying at home) before age 16.
It's funny that their position is that a judge will 'likely' concur with that age of 10 even though there is no statute age. But all the rulings (including the 8 year old one) is based on a variety of factors and varies case by case, and is largely unknown how a specific case that is different will pan out. The main thing they have going against that father is they have deeper pockets to cause a headache, while the Father has to raise money to fight it. There is no certainty that the court would rule in favour of the Ministry. But it's their threat and the representation that they have the courts in their back pocket that is enforcing that number.rcmpvet wrote: ↑Sep 6th, 2017 9:11 amHere is the latest position of the Provincial Government of B.C. (Ministry of Children and Family Development), one child must be at least 10 years of age:
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/doe ... themselves