View source for De Minimus Non Curat Lex

{{Fr|De_Minimus_Non_Curat_Lex}}
{{Currency2|January|2019}}
{{LevelOne}}
{{HeaderDefences}}
==General Principles==

The principle of ''de minimus non curat lex'' excludes certain acts from criminal sanctions due to their trivial nature. The principle is based on the premise that the law should not concern itself with trifling matters.<ref>
see {{CanLIIRP|Kubassek|1hpvt|2004 CanLII 7571 (ON CA)|188 CCC (3d) 307}}{{perONCA|Catzman JA}} (discusses the English common law history of ''de minimus'')
</ref>

The doctrine is applied to "harmless conduct" perpetrated by someone who has "not really done anything [criminally] wrong". It is conduct "for which there is no reasoned apprehension or harm to any legitimate personal or social interest."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Carson|1gwq2|2004 CanLII 21365 (ON CA)|185 CCC (3d) 541}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|1gwq2|24}}<br>
</ref>

The availability of lower end penalties, such as absolute discharges, for a conviction can be influential on whether the decline to apply the doctrine to some minor offences.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|CDW|grpz0|2016 NSPC 31 (CanLII)}}{{perNSPC|Derrick J}}{{atL|grpz0|38}}
</ref>

; History 
The doctrine has its origin in the English common law in the 16th century.<ref>
{{UKCase|Taverner v Cromwell| (1594), 78 E.R. 601}}<br>
{{UKCase|The "Reward"| (1818), 2 Dods. 265, 165 E.R. 1482}} at 1484<br>
</ref>

; Dispute on Application in Criminal Law
While there are courts that have applied the doctrine in many circumstances, there remains some contention that the doctrine has no application in criminal law.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Yum Pur Li|gdhxp|1984 CanLII 3546 (ON SC)|16 CCC (3d) 382}}{{perONSC|Montgomery J}}{{atp|386}} ("The wealth of authority in my view is that the principle of de minimis non
curat lex has no application to the criminal law. That certainly has been the disposition in appellate courts in Canada in drug related offences.")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Hinchey|1fr57|1996 CanLII 157 (SCC)|[1996] 3 SCR 1128}}{{perSCC|L’Heureux-Dubé J}} (4:3){{atL|1fr57|69}} ("this principle’s potential application as a defence to criminal culpability has not yet been decided by this Court, and  would appear to be the subject of some debate in the courts below.  Since a resolution of this issue is not strictly necessary to decide this case, I would prefer to leave this issue for another day.")
</ref>

; Appellate Review
The application of the principle of ''de minimus non curat lex'' is a question of law and reviewable on a standard of correctness.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Rumo|fwsmc|2013 ONSC 1856 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Hourigan J}}{{atL|fwsmc|11}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Property Offences==
In certain circumstances, Courts have excused minor thefts. 
The theft of a "handful" of nuts from a grocery store was not sufficiently serious for a conviction.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Fowler|2669n|2009 SKPC 114 (CanLII)|344 Sask R 56}}{{perSKPC|Harradence J}}
</ref> 
However, the theft of nail polish was sufficient for a conviction.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Gale|27c73|2009 CanLII 73900 (NL PC)}}{{perNLPC|Gorman J}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Offences of Violence==
There is "limited" societal interest in applying 'de minimus'' to offences of violence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|CDW|grpz0|2016 NSPC 31 (CanLII)}}{{perNSPC|C Williams J}}{{atL|grpz0|22}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|SAW|2bxt2|2002 NSPC 40 (CanLII)|662 APR 85}}{{perNSPC|C Williams J}} - carrying and "tweak"-ing of complainant's nose. 
</ref>

In general, the least touching of another person without their consent constitutes an assault.<ref>
see {{CanLIIRP|Dawydiuk|290rj|2010 BCCA 162 (CanLII)|253 CCC (3d) 493}}{{perBCCA|Rowles JA}}</ref> 
The strength of the force is immaterial to the consideration of guilt. <ref>
see {{CanLIIRP|Palombi|1rxpz|2007 ONCA 486 (CanLII)|222 CCC (3d) 528}}{{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}}</ref>
It has been pointed out that the level of force or violence is not the sole determiner on the question of the societal interest in criminalizing an offence of violence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Carson|1gwq2|2004 CanLII 21365 (ON CA)|185 CCC (3d) 541}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|1gwq2|25}} ("The extent of injuries resulting from the use of force, while an important factor, is not the sole determinative of the personal or societal interest in a crime. The harm to society occasioned by domestic violence, even of a minor nature, cannot be understated")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Gosselin|ftc6r|2012 QCCA 1874 (CanLII)|'}}{{perQCCA|Kasirer JA}} (rejected application of doctrine any acts of violence in conjugal context)
</ref>

Spitting is not a ''de minimus'' offence as it poses a risk of transmission of disease.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|DH|h4437|2017 ABPC 132 (CanLII)}}{{perABPC|Cornfield J}}<br>
</ref>

However, non-consensual touching amounting to a trivial assault can be subject to a ''de minimus'' finding.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Juneja|26tk0|2009 ONCJ 572 (CanLII)|[2009] OJ No 5119}}{{perONCJ|Duncan J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Hinchey|1fr57|1996 CanLII 157 (SCC)|[1996] 3 SCR 1128, (1996) 111 CCC (3d) 353}}{{perSCC|L'Heureux-Dube J}}{{atp|380-81}}<br>
</ref>

Incidental or innocuous touching could be ''de minimus''.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Peniston|5dc0|2003 NSPC 2 (CanLII)|665 APR 72}}{{perNSPC|C Williams J}}<br>
</ref>
Even a "light strike" has been found to fall within the meaning of "trifling."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Merasty|5gm8|2002 SKPC 86 (CanLII)|225 Sask R 120}}{{perSKPC|Carter J}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Wiebe|5h7m|2001 SKQB 389 (CanLII)|211 Sask R 30}}{{perSKQB|Wilkinson J}}</ref>
However, a grab to the arm and pull of a person 10 to 15 meters is not trifling.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Rumo|fwsmc|2013 ONSC 1856 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Hourigan J}}
</ref>

The pull on an officer's vest was found to be insufficient.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Newsome|gww63|2017 BCSC 56 (CanLII)}}{{perBCSC|Hyslop J}}
</ref>

; Domestic Violence
The principle cannot generally be applied in the context of domestic violence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Downey|5g10|2002 NSSC 226 (CanLII)|652 APR 153}}{{perNSSC|LeBlanc J}}{{atL|5g10|38}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|RHL|2188h|2008 NSCA 100 (CanLII)|[2008] NSJ 468 (NSCA)}}{{perNSCA|Saunder JA}}{{atL|2188h|35}}<br>
cf. {{CanLIIRP|Ferreira|g2mtl|2014 ONCJ 21 (CanLII)|OJ No 189}}{{perONCJ|O'Donnell J}}
</ref>

; Other Scenarios
The non-consensual "dancing" with a security staff member is not an assault on the basis of ''de minimus''. <ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Murphy|2f4mx|2010 NBPC 40 (CanLII)|946 APR 133}}{{perNBPC|Walker J}}
</ref>

Pushing of a minister in the chest nearly causing him to trip is not trifling.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Kubassek|1hpvt|2004 CanLII 7571 (ON CA)|[2004] OJ No 3483 (C.A)}}{{perONCA|Catzman JA}} (overturned trial judge acquittal)
</ref>


{{reflist|2}}

==Drugs==
The defence has been invoked in relation to the possession of drugs where the amounts alleged are merely residual particles of a controlled substance. <ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Marusiak|5jv2|2002 ABQB 774 (CanLII)|5 CR (6th) 182}}{{perABQB|Sullivan J}}<br>
cf. {{CanLIIRP|Keizer|1x0rb|1990 CanLII 4120 (NS SC)|59 CCC (3d) 440}}{{perNSSC|Richard J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Arne-Ling|gbh7q|1954 CanLII 409 (AB QB)|[1954] 109 CCC 306}}{{perABQB|McBride J}}<br> 
cf. {{CanLIIRP|Quigley|g9762|1954 CanLII 400 (AB CA)|111 CCC 81}}{{perABCA|Ford JA}}<br>
</ref>

The existence of drug residue can be evidence of past possession.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|McBurney|htwh3|1974 CanLII 1550 (BC SC)|15 CCC (2d) 361 (BCSC)}}{{perBCSC|Berger J}} ("A minute trace is evidence of earlier possession.  It does not establish a present possession.")
</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

===Other Offences===

; Impaird Driving
Where the BAC reading was found to be one milligram above the required threshold of BAC 0.8, the doctrine will not apply.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Usichenko|1cc46|2002 CanLII 7248 (ON SC)}}{{perONSC|Beaulieu J}}
</ref>

; Mischief
Three young accused who pushed a vehicle 10 to 30 feet down the road were not convicted under the doctrine.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Chapman|hv058|1968 CanLII 827 (BC SC)|3 CCC 358}}{{perBCSC|Harvey J}}
</ref>
The interference of enjoyment of a property by momentarily entering it was considered a trivial interference insufficient to make out the ''mens rea'' or ''actus reus''.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Gibson|g7hft|1976 CanLII 953 (SK QB)|6 WWR 484}}{{perSKQB-H|Walker}}
</ref>

; Breach of Court Orders
The degree of breach of a publication ban is not relevant to consideration of whether the offence is made out.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Banville|gbcjr|1983 CanLII 3027 (NB QB)|3 CCC (3d) 312}}{{perNBQB|Hoyt J}} - publication of 17 copies of a paper 
</ref>

However, text message contact with the complainant to make arrangements for childcare was considered a trivial breach of a no-contact order.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Arsenault|hrdq1|2018 ONCJ 224 (CanLII)}}{{perONCJ|Bliss J}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}