What are the grounds of appeal against the finding that a learned trial judge erred in fact and law in ruling that the force used was substantial?

At this juncture I set forth the following grounds stated in the notice of appeal: (1) The learned trial judge erred in fact and law in that he did not draw the proper inferences from the evidence presented at trial. (2) The learned trial judge erred in fact and law in ruling that the force used was substantial, such ruling being contrary to the evidence. (3) The learned trial judge erred in law in that he misapplied Campeau v. The King. (4) The learned trial judge erred in law in that he failed to properly apply the legal presumption of reasonable chastisement. (5) The learned trial Judge erred in fact and law by failing to properly apply the principle of reasonable doubt.

Counsel for the appellant states in his written submission (as to the third ground): . . . the learned trial judge erred in basing (the finding of guilt) upon the following obiter from the case of Campeau v. The King: There will be no disagreement that if a master strikes a pupil on the head by way (of) discipline his act is completely unjustified . . . . . . a master who so far forgets himself as to strike a child in any part of the body where permanent damage may be caused must take the consequences.