The trial, which is expected to conclude today, has called into question a parent's right to use physical force to discipline their teenage children.
The man is facing one count of assault for slapping his daughter 10 to 12 times on the bum on May 26 of this year.
According to testimony in court, the man became upset after discovering empty beer bottles and cigarettes under his daughter's bed on the morning of the 26th, while she was in school.
When the man returned from a 12-hour shift at a construction site later that night, he went into his daughter's room, rolled her over and slapped her repeatedly with an open hand.
Under Section 43 of the Criminal Code, parents are allowed to hit their children so long as the use of force "is reasonable... and for the purpose of correcting the child."
Crown attorney Mike Eweson argued that the man hit his daughter out of frustration and was not entitled to use Section 43 as a defence.
"This was not done for an educational purpose. It's not reasonable to spank a young woman at 14 years of age and expect her to change her life."
The man's lawyer, Emerald Murphy, said her client had exhausted every other avenue of discipline.
"(He) had tried everything else. The spanking wasn't done out of anger or spite. It was done by a parent who sincerely wanted to get their children on course."
Testimony in court detailed a rocky relationship between the girl and her parents
One of the central issues of the case is whether or not the girl qualifies as a child in the eyes of the law. If she doesn't, her father would not be allowed to invoke the Section 43 defence.
The Criminal Code does not define what is meant by child, so Judge Brian Bruser asked Murphy to look into applicable case law on the subject.
Lawyers for both sides will address the issue in territorial court today.
The girl is no longer living at home and her father has been barred from seeing her.