De Minimus

R v Kormos

[1998] CanLII 14958 (ON S.C.)

R. v. Kormos

1998 CanLII 14958 (ON S.C.)
Ontario Court of Justice, Provincial Division — Vaillancourt Prov. J. | January 27, 1998

---

Background

Peter Kormos, an NDP politician, conducted what the judge called a "publicity stunt" at the Family Support offices in Downsview on November 7, 1996. Kormos, along with Shelley Martel and cameraman Greg Bennett, entered the building and convinced security guard Hifzurrehman Subedar to give them an impromptu "tour" of multiple floors — including restricted areas. The entire incident was captured on videotape.

Subedar later claimed that Kormos had assaulted him during the incident, alleging that the politician pushed him around, body-checked him, and slammed him into a wall. The Crown charged Kormos with assault under the Criminal Code. However, the videotape told a very different story than Subedar's testimony.

Issues

1. Did Kormos commit an assault on the security guard?
2. Should the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex (the law does not concern itself with trifles) apply?
3. Did Kormos have legislative privilege to conduct the inspection?

The Credibility Problem

The judge found serious credibility issues with Subedar's testimony. The security guard claimed Kormos was drunk (contradicted by other witnesses and the videotape), and alleged significant physical violence that supposedly occurred "off camera." However, the audio portion of the tape captured Subedar chuckling and making casual conversation — hardly consistent with someone being assaulted.

Most damaging to Subedar's credibility: he failed to mention Kormos' alleged drunkenness in his written incident report, only raising it later when speaking to police. The judge found that Subedar's "recollection of the events was influenced by the forces of rationalization" due to media attention and concerns about losing his job after giving unauthorized access to restricted areas.

The De Minimis Doctrine

Even if the minimal physical contact could technically constitute assault, the judge considered applying the de minimis principle — that courts shouldn't concern themselves with trivial matters. The judge noted that everyday life involves countless instances of incidental touching (moving someone aside on a subway, guiding a student from a classroom) that don't constitute criminal assault.

The contact here was brief, caused no injury, and was intended to distract the guard so the cameraman could film — not to commit a criminal assault. The judge characterized any contact as "transitory" and "incidental," lacking the wrongful intent required for criminal liability.

Key Takeaway

Video evidence can be a double-edged sword — it may contradict a complainant's testimony and reveal credibility problems.

The case shows how courts assess credibility by comparing witness testimony against objective evidence like videotape, and how factors like media attention and job security concerns can influence a person's recollection of events.

Read the decision

R v Merasty

[2002] SKPC 86

R. v. Merasty

2002 SKPC 86
Provincial Court of Saskatchewan — S.C. Carter P.C.J. | September 23, 2002

---

Background

Yvonne Jean Merasty and her friend Lisa Lafond left Uncle Charlie's Bar at the Prince Albert Inn around 2:30 AM on December 2, 2001. Merasty was drunk, having consumed six or seven beers. They walked next door to the Imperial 400 Motel looking for Merasty's boyfriend, who was staying in a room rented by his uncle. When they couldn't reach him, they called a cab and waited in the lobby. Frustrated by the delay, they went outside and found the boyfriend's car parked in front of a motel room door. They pounded on the door but got no response.

Security guards Carl Stenson and Gary Gibb received a complaint about people pounding on doors. They found the two women and asked if they were registered guests. When they said no, the guards told them to leave and called a taxi. But when the taxi arrived, the women decided to go back to the Prince Albert Inn to find friends for a ride home. Instead of walking directly to the property line, they began walking east around the back, which the guards interpreted as going back into the Imperial 400 hallways.

Issues

1. Did Merasty commit an assault when she struck the security guard?
2. Should the legal principle "de minimus non curat lex" apply to excuse a trivial assault?

The De Minimus Defence

The guards followed the women, with one guard (described as "the tall one") yelling that "this was his land" and they had to listen to him "because he was God." At the property line, Merasty bent over and told the guards to "kick me in the butt." She then turned to face Stenson, who was only two or three feet away. With one leg over the property line, she hollered "this is your land, this is my land" and struck Stenson lightly in the chest.

The guards immediately grabbed her, threw her to the ground, handcuffed her, and left her lying face down in the snow. Judge Carter found that while Merasty did strike Stenson, the contact was so minor that it fell under the legal maxim "de minimus non curat lex" — the law does not concern itself with trifles. The judge noted the racial undertones in the incident, Merasty's intoxicated state, and that the security guards' violent response was completely disproportionate to her light touch.

Key Takeaway

Even when you technically commit an assault, the court can dismiss charges if the contact was so trivial that it doesn't deserve the law's attention.

The de minimus principle recognizes that not every minor physical contact should result in criminal liability, especially when the circumstances show the accused was responding to provocation or the "victim's" reaction was wildly disproportionate.

Read the decision