[Home -- Accueil]
[Main Page -- Criminal Law / Page principale -- droit pénal]

updated to / mise à jour au: 7 February 2010
 

- To assist researchers, please do not hesitate to suggest titles to these bibliographies.  Thank you.
- Pour le bénéfice de tous, n'hésitez pas à suggérer des ajouts aux bibliographies.  Merci.
flareau@rogers.com
 
 

by / par ©François Lareau, 2002-, Ottawa, Canada

Selected Bibliography on the rule
De Minimis Non Curat Lex in Criminal Law
----------------------
Bibliographie choisie sur la règle
De Minimis Non Curat Lex en droit pénal
------
See also / Voir aussi: Comparative Law / Droit comparé
------
 

"After writing this bibliography, I realized that the most important thing that I had learned was the comment of Mr. Hétu -- that the de minimis defence is a discretionary matter for the Court to decide.  This finding explains the difficulty and futilty of trying to ascertain through contradictory case-law if the defence exists or doesn't." (François Lareau, April 7, 2002)

I - Canadian Law / droit canadien
 

ALLEN, John Pearson, 1961-, Defending Provincial Offence Cases in Ontario 1999, Scarborough (Ontario): Carswell, Thomson Professional Publishing, 1998, xii, 152 p., see "De Minimus" at pp. 38-39 (paragraph 5.6.4), ISBN: 0459263013; there is now a 4th ed. which I have not consulted yet on this defence: ALLEN, John Pearson, 1951-, and Bernie Aron, contributing editor, Defending Provincial Offences Cases in Ontario 2003, 3rd ed., Scarborough: Carswell, Thomson Professional Publishing, 2003, xv, 180 p.,  ISBN: 0459240951 (series: Carswell's Practice Guides); copy at the Library of the Supreme Court of Canada, KF9620 ZB3 A45 2003;

"5.6.4 DE MINIMUS ...
Courts generally defer to the power of the legislature to prescribe conduct which might otherwise appear trifling, and the power of prosecution, as agent for the Ministry of the Attorney General to exercise its discretion in using its prosecution resources as it deems fit, consider the cases discussed below." (pp. 38-39)

"44. [If the magistrate dismiss the complaint, he shall make out a certificate to that effect.]  If the Justice, upon the hearing of any case of assault or battery upon the merits, where the complaint was preferred by or on behalf of the party aggrieved, under the last preceding section, deems the offence not to be proved, or finds the assault or battery to have been justified or so trifling as not to merit any punishment, and accordingly dismisses the complaint, he shall forthwith make out a certificate under his hand, stating the fact of such dismissal, and shall deliver such certificate to the party against whom the complaint was preferred."  (p. 180, emphasis in bold added)

"45. [Certificate or conviction shall be a bar to any other proceedings.]  If any person against whom any such complaint, as in either of the last two preceding sections mentioned, has been preferred,  by or on the behalf of the party aggrieved, has obtained obtained such certificate, or, having been convicted, has paid the whole amount adjudged to be paid, or has suffered the imprisonment, or imprisonment with hard labour awarded, in every such case he shall be released from all further or other proceedings, civil or criminal, for the same cause." (p. 181)
--------------------

"44. [Si la plainte est déboutée, certificat.]  Si le juge de paix, lors de l'audition de quelque cas d'assaut ou batterie, au mérite, lorsque la plainte a été portée par la partie lésée ou en son nom en vertu de la section précédente, est d'opinion que l'offense n'est pas établie, ou trouve l'assaut ou batterie justifiable, ou de si peu de conséquence qu'il ne mérite aucune punition, et déboute la plainte en conséquence, il dressera aussitôt un certificat sous son seing établissant le fait du renvoi de la plainte, et délivrera ce certificat à la partie contre laquelle la plainte a été portée.

45. [Certificat déclaré fin de non-recevoir.] Si la personne contre laquelle la plainte mentionnée dans l'une ou l'autre des deux sections précédentes a été portée par la partie lésée ou en son nom, obtient un tel certificat, ou si, ayant été convaincue du fait, elle paie le montant entier adjugé, ou si elle subit l'emprisonnement, ou l'emprisonnement aux travaux forcés, elle ne pourra plus être poursuivie, soit au civil, soit au criminel, pour la même cause." (p. 186)

BENEDET, Janine, "Hierarchies of Harm in Canadian Criminal Law: The Marijuana Triology and the Forcible 'Correction' of Children", (2004) 24 The Supreme Court Law Review (2nd ed.) 217-241, and see at pp. 223-227;

BOLTON, P. Michael (Philip Michael), 1943-, Defending Drug Cases, 2nd ed., Scarborough: Carswell, Thomson Professional Publishing, 1999, xi, 141 p., see "Minute Traces of a Narcotic" at pp. 91-92,  (series; Canada practice guides; Criminal series),  ISBN: 0459271857;
 

BRAUTI, Peter M., 1968-, and Brian G. Puddington, 1975-, Prosecuting and defending drug offences, Aurora (Ont.): Canada Law Book, c2003, xlvi, 490 p., see "De Minimis Non Curat Lex", at pp. 15-16, ISBN: 0888043775; copy at Carleton University,  Floor 4, KE9050 .B73 2003;
 

BRUCKER, Theresa M., The Practical Guide to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, 3rd ed., Scarborough: Carswell, A Thomson Company, 2002, xv, 240 p., see on de minimis, pp. 20-21; copy at the Library of the Supreme Court of Canada, KF 3890 B78 2002 c. 01;
 

CANADA, Department of Justice Canada, Crown Policy Manual, [Ottawa]: Department of Justice (Canada), January, 1993; also published in French/aussi publié en français: CANADA, Ministère de la Justice Canada, Guide des procureurs de la Couronne, [Ottawa]: Ministère de la Justice Canada, 1993;

"Where the alleged offence is not so serious as plainly to require criminal proceedings Crown counsel should always consider whether the public interest requires a prosecution. Public interest factors which may arise on the facts of a particular case include:
(a) the seriousness or triviality of the alleged offence;
(b) significant mitigating or aggravating circumstances;
(c) the age, intelligence, physical or mental health or infirmity of the accused;
(d) the accused's background;
(e) the degree of staleness of the alleged offence;
(f) the accused's alleged degree of responsibility for the offence;
(g) the prosecution's likely effect on public order and morale or on public confidence
in the administration of justice;
(h) whether prosecuting would be perceived as counter-productive, for example, by bringing the administration of justice into disrepute;
(i) the availability and appropriateness of alternatives to prosecution;
(j) the prevalence of the alleged offence in the community and the need for general and specific deterrence;
(k) whether the consequences of a prosecution or conviction would be disproportionately harsh or oppressive;
(l)  whether the alleged offence is of considerable public concern;
(m) the entitlement of any person or body to criminal compensation, reparation or forfeiture if prosecution occurs;
(n) the attitude of the victim of the alleged offence to a prosecution;
(o) the likely length and expense of a trial, and the resources available to conduct the proceedings;
(p) whether the accused agrees to co-operate in the investigation or prosecution of others, or the extent to which the accused has already done so;
(q) the likely sentence in the event of a conviction; and
(r) whether prosecuting would require or cause the disclosure of information that would be injurious to international relations, national defence, national security or that should not be disclosed in the public interest.

The application of and weight to be given to these and other relevant factors will depend on the circumstances of each case.  The proper decision in many cases will be to proceed with a prosecution if there is sufficient evidence available to justify a prosecution.  Mitigating factors present in a particular case can then be taken into account by the court in the event of a conviction." (pp. II-1-2 to II-1-3; http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/crim/crimd03e.htm; emphasis in bold added)

"Trivial violations
It is not entirely clear whether the saying de minimis non curat lex ('the law does not concern itself with trifles') applies to criminal prosecutions at present.  Some judges and legal scholars, though not all, take the view that it does, and that a judge, after deciding that the person committed the offence, may dismiss the case if it is too trivial to be worth a conviction.

The de minimis defence is sometimes raised in drug cases that involve only a tiny quantity of the drug, in theft cases where the value of the stolen property is very low, or in assault cases where the injury is extremely minor.

The Canadian Bar Association proposed that de minimis should be codified in the new General Part.  It would apply when the judge decides that the person did indeed commit the offence but, in view of the nature of the conduct and all the circumstances, the violation was too trivial to be worth a conviction.  The accused person would have to prove that the violation was too trivial to be worth a conviction.  If the judge agreed, the result would be an acquittal; instead, the judge would enter a stay of proceedings.

Those who support this approach argue that it allows the courts to ensure that the criminal law and the criminal justice system are used for serious cases only.  People would be protected from criminal conviction and penalties for relatively trivial misconduct.  It would also make clear in the law whether de minimis is a defence or not and when it can apply.  In codifying the defence, the new General Part could state that it does not apply to certain offences, and could put restrictions on when it can apply to other offences.

Others argue that the defence of de minimis is not necessary.  They say that, in Canada today, police and prosecutors screen all criminal charges, and only the more serious cases go to court.  Trivial violations are usually sent to out-of-court diversion programs, unless the person is a repeat offender or there is a particular reason to prosecute in criminal court.  A codified defence of de minimis might conflict with the operation of these programs.  Moreover, when minor violations do go to criminal court, penalties are flexible and include conditional or absolute discharges, and pardons may be available at a later stage.

They argue as well that a defence of de minimis would increase the length and complexity of trials.  A case that appears to the judge to be trivial may in fact, when seen in context, require more serious measures to be taken.  For example, theft of a 50-cent newspaper from a box may seem trivial in the individual case, but could be a thousand-dollar-a-day problem on a city-wide basis.  If prosecutors have to call evidence to justify prosecutions that seem trivial, minor cases will take much more time than they now do.

QUESTION (13)
Should the new General Part include a defence of de minimis, by which a person who has committed an offence would not be convicted if  the offence is too trivial to be worth a conviction, in view of the circumstances, including the person's background and the context of the offence?" (pp. 24-25)

CANADA, House of Commons,  Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Sub-Committee on the Recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, [Ottawa]: Queen's Printer for Canada, 1992-1993,  11 Issues:  no. 1: 25, 26, 30 March  1992, 12 May and  8 June 1992; no. 2: 15 June 1992; no. 3: 16 June 1992; no. 4: 16 June 1992; no. 5: 2 and 18 November. 1991; no. 6: 19 November 1992; no. 7: 23 November 1992; no. 8: 24 November 1992; no. 9: 26 November. 1992; no. 10: 8 December  1992; no. 11: 10 December 1992 and  2, 4, and 16 February 1993; note that the 11th issue consists of the report:  First Principles: Recodifying the General Part of the Criminal Code of Canada: Report of the Sub-Committee on the Recodification of the General part of the Criminal Code of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Sollicitor General; regarding this report, see Chapter xiv, "Remaining Issues - Tentative Views" - "De Minimis" at p, 68; also published in French/aussi publié en français: Chambre des Communes, Procès-verbaux et témoignages du Sous-comité sur la Recodification de la Partie générale du Code criminel du Comité permanent de la justice et du Solliciteur général,  [Ottawa]: I'Imprimeur de la Reine pour le Canada, 1992-1993, 11 fasicules : 1: 25, 26, 30 mars 1992, 12 mai, 8 juin 1992; 2: 15 juin 1992; 3: 16 juin 1992; 4: 16 juin 1992; 5: 2 et 18 novembre 1991; 6: 19 novembre 1992; 7: 23 novembre 1992; 8: 24 novembre 1992; 9: 26 novembre 1992; 10: 8 décembre 1992; 11: 10 décembre 1992 et 2,4,16 février 1993; noter que le 11e fasicule contient le rapport : Principes de base: recodification de la Partie générale du Code criminel du Canada.  Rapport du Sous-comité sur la recodification de la Partie générale du Code criminel du Canada du Comité permanent de la justice et du Solliciteur général; concernant le rapport, voir le chapitre xiv, "Autres questions - éléments de réflexion" - "La règle de minimis" aux pp. 72-73;

"The Sub-Committee believes that codifying the concept of de minimis along the lines proposed by the CBA [Canadian Bar Association] Task Force would be an improvement over the existing law." (p. 68 of the Report of the Sub-Committee)
---------------------
"Le sous-comité estime que la codification de l'excuse de minimis que propose le Groupe de travail de l'ABC [l'Association du Barreau canadien] améliorerait le droit actuel." (p. 72 du Rapport du Sous-comité)

CANADA, Officials of the Department of Justice Canada and Members of the Law Reform Commission of Canada,  Toward a New General Part for the Criminal Code of Canada: A Framework Document on the Proposed New General Part of the Criminal Code for the Consideration of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, [Ottawa]: [Department of Justice Canada], [1990], 137 p., see "De Minimis Non Curat Lex" at pp. 107-108; available at my Digital Library, http://www.lareau-law.ca/DigitalLibrary.html; also published in French/aussi publié en français: Fonctionnaires du Ministère de la Justice Canada et des membres de la Commission de réforme du droit du Canada, Pour une nouvelle codification de la Partie générale du Code criminel du Canada : document cadre sur la nouvelle partie générale proposée du Code criminel présenté pour examen au comité permanent de la justice et du solliciteur général, [Ottawa]: [Ministère de la Justice], [1990], 144 p., voir "De Minimis Non Curat Lex" aux pp. 111-112; disponible à ma bibliothèque digitale, http://www.lareau-law.ca/DigitalLibrary.html;

"CANADIAN RECOMMENDATIONS
The Law reform Commission of Canada made no recommendation that the General Part should include a defence of  'de minimis non curat lex'.  Not enacting a 'de minimis' defence allows the defence to be applied more flexibly on an ad hoc basis depending on the crime in question.  The disadvantage may be a resulting confusion as to the application of the principle.

           An alternative would be to enact a 'de minimis non curat lex' provision.  The advantage is to address distinctly the principle, as does Model Penal Code, and to make the Code comprehensive, leaving it to the courts to interpret the provision in the context of particular crimes.  It would however send a clear message that notwithstanding a crime has been committed, an accused should be acquitted merely because the crime is trivial, rather than leaving the triviality to be taken into account at a sentencing hearing.

           The Working Group on the General Part was split on this issue." (pp. 107-108)
-------------------------
"RECOMMANDATIONS CANADIENNES
La Commission de réforme du droit du Canada ne recommande pas qu'un moyen de défense fondé sur la maxime "de minimis non curat lex' soit inclus dans la partie générale.  Cette solution permettrait une plus grande souplesse dans l'application du moyen de défense selon l'infraction en cause.  Toutefois, cette application pourrait créer une certaine confusion.

           On pourrait également adopter une disposition énonçant ce principe.  Celui-ci serait alors clairement établi, comme c'est le cas dans le Model Penal Code.  Le Code serait ainsi plus complet et il laisserait aux tribunaux le soin d'interpréter la disposition dans chaque cas particulier.  Par contre, il est évident que le tribunal acquitterait un accusé au seul motif que la violation de la loi est insignificante, plutôt que de décider de tenir compte du peu d'importance de cette violation au moment de la détermination de la peine.

          Les avis des membres du groupe de travail sur la partie générale sont partagés sur cette question." (pp. 111-112)

CANADA, Parliament, Senate, Standing Committee on Human Rights, Children: The Silenced Citizens: Effective Implementation of Canada's International Obligations with respect to the Rights of Children: Final report of the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights, Ottawa, 2007, xxv, 296 p., and see the recommendation at p. 71; available at http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/huma-e/rep-e/rep10apr07-e.pdf (accessed on 28 April 2007); to understand this recommendation, see also the testimony of the witnesses before the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, studying Bill S-207, on  4, 11, 18 and 19 June 2007, issue number 20, available at http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/huma-e/pdf/20issue.pdf; also published in French / aussi publié en français: CANADA, Parlement, Comié permanent des droits de la personne, Les enfants: des citoyens sans voix: mise en oeuvre efficace des obligations internationales du Canada relatives aux droits des enfants : rapport final du Comité sénatorial des Droits de la personne, Ottawa, 2007, xxv, 322 p., et voir la recommandation à la p. 79, disponible à http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-f/huma-f/rep-f/rep10apr07-f.pdf (site visité le 29 avril 2007); pour comprendre cette recommandation, voir les témoignages des témoins devant le Comité sénatorial permanent des Droits de la personne, étudiant S-207,  fascicule numéro pour les 4, 11, 18 et  19 juin 2007, disponible à  http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/huma-e/pdf/20issue.pdf;

CANADA/PROVINCES, Report of the Working Group on Chapter 3 of the Law Reform Commission of Canada Report 30, Vol. 1,  "Recodifying Criminal Law", [Ottawa]: [Department of Justice Canada], December 1987, vii, 80 p., see pp. 79-80; research Note:  this report is cited in the Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1988-1989 - 18th Annual Report, Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1989 at p. 37, ISBN: 0662573013.  Chapter 3 of report 30  of the Law Reform Commission is entitled "Defences" and  includes no  provision on de minimis non  curat lex.  This report of the working group was submitted to the Federal-Provincial Coordination Committee of Senior Justice Officials.  Members of the Working Group were from: the Department of Justice Canada, and from the following provincial Attorney General Departments or Ministries/Departments of Justice: Ontario, Québec, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and  British Columbia. This report is available from the Department of Justice Canada.  It was obtained by François Lareau in 1998 under Access to Information Request to the Department of Justice Canada, number A98-00185. also available in French / aussi disponible en français: CANADA/PROVINCES, Rapport du Groupe de travail chargé de l'étude du chapitre 3 du Rapport no 30 de la Commission de réforme du droit du Canada "Pour une nouvelle codification du droit pénal" (Volume I), [Ottawa]: [Ministère de la Justice Canada],  décembre 1987, vii, 88 p., voir les pp. 86-87; note de recherche : ce rapport est mentionné dans Commission de réforme du droit du Canada, 1988-1989, Dix-huitième Rapport annuel,  Ottawa : Commission de réforme du droit du Canada, 1989, à la p. 40, ISBN: 0662573013.  Le chapitre 3 du rapport 30 a pour titre «Les moyens de défense» et ne comprend pas de disposition sur la maxime "de minimis non curat lex".  Ce rapport du groupe de travail a été soumis au Comité fédéral-provincial de coordination composé de fonctionnaires de niveau supérieur de la justice.  Les membres du groupe de travail proviennent du Ministère de la Justice Canada et des ministères des procureurs généraux /ministères provinciaux de la justice de: l'Ontario, Québec, Nouvelle-Écosse, Saskatchewan, Alberta et Columbie-Britannique.  Ce rapport est disponible au Ministère de la Justice Canada.  Il a été obtenu par François Lareau en 1998 suite à une demande d'accès à l'information numéro A-98-00185;

    "The members have considered four other defences, which were not considered by the Commission in Report 30:
de minimis
entrapment
abuse of process
abandonment (of attempts or conspiracies)

    There is a fairly even division of opinion: some members feel these should be included in the group of defences which should be considered for codification, abolition, or being left to the common law.  Other members feel these areas should be left to the courts and are opposed to consideration of any legislative action.

    Some of the members feel there is a case for reconsideration of the criminal law defences, given the state of some of the codified defences and the number of defences which are not codified at all.

    To some extent it is an abdication of responsibility and almost anti-democratic to leave issues to the courts where Parliament could set the standards.  Against this, some members argue that some defences come up so seldom that it is not worthwhile to legislate; and for some defences, it is not possible to set out the appropriate parameters with any degree of certainty.

    The first group of members feel that parameters of defences are essentially policy questions, and inherently appropriate for Parliamentary initiative.  If the parameters chosen prove to be inappropriate, the legislation can be changed.  Moreover, while it may not be possible to set out the appropriate parameters, this may be symptomatic of insufficient study of the legal problem, or insufficient sounding of public opinion or the concerns of interest groups, on a policy question.  But just because it may be premature to formulate legislative provisions, it does not mean that the matter should be consigned for all time for the courts to decide.

    Two members have expressed concern that codification of the little-used defences would elevate their status as defences and lead to an inappropriate increase in frequency of use.  Other members argue this is one, but only one, of the relevant factors in making a policy decision; and ultimately, the decision may be not to legislate, or to abolish the defence.  If we recognize the defence at all, it should not be left to the courts without parameters.  There may be a problem of unequal treatment, where judges are given no guidelines.

            Additional Issues
De Minimis
    De Minimis was dealt with obliquely in the Preamble to Report 30: 'The criminal law should fulfil this function by prohibiting and punishing culpable conduct which causes or threatens serious harm'.  However, the Report contains no direct discussion of the issues involved." (pp. 79-80)
---------------------------
    "Les membres ont étudié quatre autres moyens de défense qui n'ont pas été présentés par la Commission dans le rapport 30 :
de minimis
provocation policière
abus de procédure
désistement (de tentatives ou de complots)

    Les opinions sont partagées sur ces questions : certains membres estiment que ces moyens de défense devraient être inclus dans le groupe de ceux qui doivent être étudiés afin de déterminer s'il convient de les codifier, de les abolir ou de les laisser au common law.  D'autres membres estiment que ces questions devraient être laissées aux tribunaux et qu'il n'y a pas lieu de proposer de légiférer à leur égard.

    Certains membres jugent qu'il y aurait lieu de réviser les moyens de défense en droit pénal, étant donné l'état de certains moyens de défense codifiés et le nombre des moyens de défense qui ne sont pas codifiés du tout.

    Dans une certaine mesure, c'est renoncer à ses obligations et agir de façon pratiquement anti-démocratique que de laisser les questions aux tribunaix quand le Parlement pourrait établir des normes.  À l'opposé, d'autres membres prétendent que certains moyens de défense sont invoqués si peu souvent qu'il ne vaut pas la peine de légiférer à leur égard; quant à certains moyens de défense, il est impossible d'en établir les limites appropriées avec un degré suffisant de certitude.

    Le premier groupe estime que les limites des moyens de défense sont essentiellement des questions de politique qui devraient être résolues par le Parlement.  Si les limites établies ne sont pas appropriées, il y a moyen de modifier la législation.  De plus, s'il devenait impossible d'établir les limites appropriées, cela pourrait être l'indice d'un manque d'étude du problème juridique, ou d'un manque de sollicitation de l'opinion ou des préoccupations des groupes d'intérêt sur une question politique; toutefois, le fait qu'il soit trop tôt pour formuler une disposition législative ne signifie pas pour autant que l'on doive à tout jamais laisser la question à la décision des cours.

    Deux membres ont exprimé la crainte que la codification des moyens de défense rarement utilisés rehausse leur statut de défense et porte les citoyens à les invoquer plus fréquemment, ce qui serait inapproprié.  D'autres membres prétendent qu'il s'agit là d'un seul facteur pertinent parmi bien d'autres dans la prise d'une décision de politique; de toute façon, il se peut que la décision arrêtée soit de ne pas légiférer ou d'abolir le moyen de défense.  Si nous reconaissons le moyen de défense, il ne faudrait pas le laisser aux tribunaux sans en préciser les limites.  Autrement, en l'absence de lignes directrices à l'intention des juges, le problème d'un traitement illégal pourrait se poser.

           Questions supplémentaires
De Minimis
    La question de principe de minimis est traitée indirectement dans le préambule du rapport 30 : 'Le droit pénal devrait s'acquitter de ce rôle en prohibant et en punisssant toute conduite coupable qui cause ou menace de causer un préjudice grave'.  Le rapport ne contient toutefois aucune discussion expresse des questions en cause." (pp. 86-87)

CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION, Submission to the Minister of Justice on the Proposals to Amend the Criminal Code (General Principles), [Ottawa]: [The Canadian Bar Association], January 1994, 12 p. (series; Legislative and Law Reform Submissions); infomation on the French version/informations sur la version française: L'Association du Barreau canadien, Mémoire au Ministre de la justice sur la proposition de modification du Code criminel (Principes généraux), [Ottawa]: [L'Association du Barreau canadien], janvier 1994, 12 p. (Collection; Mémoires - Législation et réforme du droit);

CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION,  CRIMINAL RECODIFICATION TASK FORCE, Principles of Criminal Liability: Proposals for a New General Part of the Criminal Code - Report of the Criminal Recodification Task Force,  Ottawa: Canadian Bar Association, [1992],  x, 190 p., see "XV. DE MINIMIS NON CURAT LEX" at pp. 123-129,  ISBN: 0920742335; research note 1: This book is also published in CANADA, House of Commons, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Sub-Committee on the Recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General,  Issue 5 of 2 and 18 November 1992 at pp. 5A:1-5A:194; research note 2: for the discussion paper of the Criminal Recodification Task Force, see Hamilton, infra; also published in French / aussi publié en français: ASSOCIATION  DU BARREAU CANADIEN, GROUPE DE TRAVAIL SUR LA NOUVELLE CODIFICATION DU DROIT PÉNAL, Principes de responsabilité pénale: proposition de nouvelles dispositions générales du Code criminel du Canada: Rapport du Groupe de travail sur la nouvelle codification du droit pénal, Ottawa : Association du Barreau canadien, [1992], xiii, 206 p., ISBN: 0920742351; note de recherche 1 : aussi publié dans CANADA, Chambre des Communes,  Procès-verbaux et témoignages du Sous-comité sur la Recodification de la Partie générale du Code criminel du Comité permanent de la justice et du Solliciteur général, fasicule 5 du  2 et 18 novembre 1992 aux pp. 5A:224-5A:434; note de recherche 2 : pour le document de travail du Groupe de travail sur la nouvelle codification du droit pénal, voir, Hamilton, infra;

"The Task Force recommends that the new Criminal Code contain a provision to the following effect:
Trivial violations
19. Where the Crown has proved all the essential elements of an offence the Court may, before a finding of guilt is entered, stay the proceedings against the accused with respect to that offence, where the accused satisfies the Court on the balance of probabilities that, having regard to the nature of the conduct and all the attendant circumstances, the violation was too trivial to warrant a finding of guilt, the entering of a conviction or the imposition of a criminal sanction." (p. 123 of the CBA book)
-------------------------------
"Le Groupe de travail recommande l'inclusion de la disposition suivante dans le nouveau Code criminel :
Infractions vénielles
19.  Lors même que le ministère public a fait la preuve que tous les éléments essentiels de l'infraction, le tribunal saisi peut, avant de rendre un verdict de culpabilité, suspendre la procédure contre le prévenu pour ce qui est de cette infraction, si celui-ci le convainc par prépondérance des probabilités qu'eu égard à la nature de l'acte commis et à toutes les circonstances y afférentes, l'infraction est trop vénielle pour justifier un verdict de culpabilité, l'enregistrement d'une déclaration de culpabilité ou l'application d'une peine." (Procès-verbaux et témoignages du Sous-comité sur la Recodification de la Partie générale du Code criminel du Comité permanent de la justice et du Solliciteur général, p. 5A:365)

CHAMPAGNE, Gérald, La pertinence du principe "de minimis non curat lex" en droit criminel, 1996, 78 feuilles; copie à l'Université Laval, K 46 E78 C449 1996; titre noté dans ma recherche mais document pas encore consulté;
 

C.(K.D.) v. C.(M.C.), 2007 ONCJ 127 (CanLII);

COLVIN, Eric, 1945-,  Principles of Criminal Law, 2nd ed., [Scarborough]: Carswell, 1991, xxvi, 399 p., see "De Minimis" at pp. 99-103,  ISBN: 0459355619 (bound) and 0459355716 (pbk.);
 

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46;

2. [...]
"bodily harm" « lésions corporelles »
"bodily harm" means any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature;"

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CANADA, Jarvis, Brian and Darren Littlejohn, Communications and Consultation Branch, Reforming the General Part of the Criminal Code - Analysis of Responses to the Consultation Paper, [Ottawa]: [Department of Justice Canada], August 1995, 51 p., see "Trivial Violations" at pp.44-46; document obtained by François Lareau, further to an Access to Information Act request of 21 August 1998 to the Department of Justice Canada, request number A98-00147, documents number 000871-000921; this document is available at my Digital Library on Canadian criminal law at, http://www.lareau-law.ca/DigitalLibrary.html;

"TRIVIAL VIOLATIONS
Question posed:

Should the new General Part include a defence of de minimus [sic], by which a person who has committed an offence would not be convcted if the offence is too trivial to be worth a conviction, in view of the circumstances, including the person<s background and the context of the offence?

RESPONSES:
Responses to this question were received from 19 members of the general public, 1 church, 3 members of the judiciary, 1 police organization, 3 government departments, 2 women's groups, and 1 community service group.

GENERAL PUBLIC
Of the 19 respondents in this category, 11 argued in favour of a defence of de minimus.  One person felt there is already too much litigation in this country and that a de minimus defence would help curb it.  An opponent of de minimus argued the defence is not necessary because police and prosecutors already screen all criminal charges.  In other words, trivial violations are already dealt with through out-of-court diversion programs, and unless a person is a repeat offender, trivial crimes can be dealt with out of [sic] the courtroom even in the absence of a de minimus defence.  However, many of these respondents were 'cautious proponents.'  While they supported the principle of de minimus, some pointed out how difficult it is to determine when a crime is actually trivial.  Another proponent expressed some concern that the defence might come to be extended and reach non-trivial offences like assault.

Eight respondents voiced opposition to this defence for various reasons.  One opponent felt any offence, for which the prosecutor feels court time is warranted, should be addressed at trial.  In his view, that option should be left open for any offence.  Some opponents felt that the separation of serious and trivial violations reflects a false distinction.  In the words of one respondent, 'to break the law is to break the law.'  Another person argued that 'each triviality that goes unpunished by the law places the seeds of future acts of contempt for the laws and values held by our society.'  It was felt that allowing young people to escape criminal responsibility for trivial crimes simply sends the wrong message.

CHURCH
The Greek Orthodox Diocese of Toronto argued that recognition of a de minimus defence has worth.  However, the defence should stand on its own merits and not be supported because of its specific relevance to issues of cultural difference.

JUDICIARY
[Part completely exempted under s. 21(1)(b) of the Act]

POLICE
The RCMP argued against the codification of a de minimus defence.  In their view, police and crowns already use their discretion in trivial matters.  There is also the option of conditional or absolute discharges and suspended sentences or probation.

FEDERAL/PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
One respondent from Health Canada felt that a defence of de minimus would further congest the justice system.  The respondent pointed out that the police already deal with violations they view as trivial outside the courts.  The police also make decisions in conjunction with crown attorneys who are responsible for balancing the justice system's organizational needs while ensuring proper administration of justice.  Therefore, at present, it is unlikely that trivial violations will end up before the courts.

[Part exempted under ss. 21(1)(b) and (b) of the Act] Canadian Heritage also opposed a defence of de minimus.  In their view, it would only increase the length and complexity of trials.

COMMUNITY SERVICE GROUPS
The Citizens United for Safety Society did not see the need to include a defence of de minimus because it is already true that trivial violations rarely reach court.

WOMEN'S GROUPS
The Catholic Women's League of Canada does not believe 'de minimus' is a necessary defence.  At present, the police and crown counsel do not proceed unless, in their view, the offence is serious enough to take up the time of the courts.  Measures are already taken to ensure there are no court backlogs.  The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women also opposed the de minimus defence. They were concerned about who would make the delicate decision as to what constitutes a 'trivial violation.'  They were also worried that women's concerns might be labelled trivial by the justice system.  They argued as follows: 'from our work and observations, we conclude that women's experiences have been trivialized by the justice system.  We also believe that including such a distinction in the law reinforce negative attitudes towards women's complaints.  Because there is very little understanding of the dynamic of fear in abusive relationships, many judges dismiss certain incidents as trivial." (pp. 44-46 =  pp. 00914-000916 of released documents)
 

GILMOUR, Glenn, Draft working paper on de minimis non curat lex,  [Ottawa : Law Reform Commission of Canada], 1984, 57 leaves ; copy at the National Library Preserv Copy - COP.CA.2.1993-1179 - NO ILL;  draft research paper prepared by the Law Reform Commission of Canada;
 

HALLEY, Paule, 1964-, Le droit pénal de l'environnement: l'interdiction de polluer, Cowansville: Éditions Yvon Blais, 2001, xxi, 403 p., ISBN: 2894515103, voir "La maxime de minimis non curat lex" aux pp. 321-331;  copie à la bibliothèque de la Cour suprême du Canada, KF 3775 ZB5 H35 2001;
 

HAMILTON, Keith R., "De Minimis Non Curat Lex",  December 1991, 13 p., discussion paper mentioned in The Canadian Bar Association Task Force Report, Principles of Criminal Liability: Proposals for a New General Part of the Criminal Code, Ottawa: Canadian Bar Association, [1992], x, 190 p. at p. 189, ISBN: 0920742335; available from the Canadian Bar Association, Ottawa, Ontario; copy at the Library of the Faculty of Law, University of Montreal, HAAD W926 v.08 1991; the paper is part of the  following series: (series; Working Paper, Canadian Bar Association, National Criminal Justice Section, Committee on Criminal Code Reform; number 8);

"ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
a. Should the criminal law of Canada include an excuse for de minimis violations?
As stated earlier, the justifications for a de minimis excuse are that:
- it reserves the application of the criminal law to serious misconduct,
- it protects an accused from the stigma of a criminal conviction and from the imposition of severe penalties for relatively trivial misconduct,
-it saves the courts from being swamped by an enormous number of trivial cases.

It might be contended that these arguments, however valid historically, are not persuasive today, having regard to the availability of diversion programs, the discretion not to prosecute, an evolving doctrine of abuse of process, absolute and conditional discharges and pardons.

However, advocates of a de minimis excuse would respond that trivial cases do get through all these pre-trial screening devices, and the review of prosecutions in this paper suggests that, even today, inconsequential misconduct does get before the Courts.

Similarly, the availability of discharges and pardons is not a complete answer, for two reasons.  First discharges are not available for corporate accuseds, or for accuseds facing an offence 'for which a minimum punishment is prescribed by law or an offence punishable, in the proceedings commenced against him, by imprisonment for fourteen years or life.'

Second, it is a pre-condition to the granting of a discharge that the accused plead or be found guilty.  While the distinction may appear to some subtle, the de minimis doctrine would intervene to excuse an accused before a finding of guilt, once the Crown has proved all the constituent elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. ..." (p. 12)
 

"Pour conclure, nous pouvons affirmer que la maxime latine de 'de minimis non curat praetor (ou lex)' est très présente dans notre droit.  Elle permet à nos tribunaux de refuser d'entendre des poursuites futiles ou abusives susceptibles de discréditer l'administration de la justice.  Dans d'autres circonstances, elle permet à nos juges d'introduire dans leur jugement des éléments d'équité et de bon sens.  Bien que discrétionnaire dans son application, la maxime n'en est pas moins nécessaire pour mettre fin rapidement à un débat judiciaire qui n'aurait jamais dû commencer.  C'est donc une règle de droit dont il ne faut pas minimiser l'importance." (p. 1076)

INSTITUTE OF LAW RESEARCH AND REFORM, Defences to Provincial Charges, Edmonton: The Institute of Law Research and Reform, March 1984, ii, 123 p., see "De Minimis Non Curat Lex" at pp. 81-82 (series; Report No. 39);

    "This defence has largely arisen in cases involving charges of possession of minute quantities of a narcotic.  The concept involved is that the courts will not take notice of breaches of the law which are based on the slightest, most technical breach.  In part, the theory is based on a notion that the evil to be prevented by the offence section has not actually occurred.  Just as the courts will not generally notice the fraction of a day, or a fraction of a penny they will not always take notice of a minute, unusable quantity of cannabis resin in a pipe that can only be ascertained by scientific means.
......
    In principle, we see no objection to this defence.  It is very limited defence as the cases do not suggest that the courts attempt to determine the importance of the law.  Rather, they avoid convicting a person whose breach is so technical that there should probably not have been a prosecution in the first place." (pp. 81-82)

KNOLL, Patrick J., 1950-, Criminal Law Defences: Textbook Edition of the title Criminal Law Defences Canadian Encyclopedic Digest Third Edition, 2nd ed.,  Scarborough: Carswell (Thomson Professional Publishing), 1994, 224 p., see "De Minimis Non Curat Lex" at p. 196 (less than one page), ISBN: 0459552392; there is now a 3rd edition of this book;
 

LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF CANADA, Thirttenth Annual Report 1983-84, Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1984, [iii], 44 p., ISBN: 0662531728; research note: for a copy of the unpublished discussion paper in its draft format, see Gilmour, supra; available at my Digital Library, http://www.lareau-law.ca/DigitalLibrary.html; also published in French / aussi publié en français : COMMISSION DE RÉFORME DU DROIT DU CANADA, Treizième rapport annuel 1993-1984, Ottawa: Ministère des Approvisionnements et Services Canada 1984, [iii], 49 p., ISBN: 0662531728; note de recherche : pour une copie de la version provisoire du document de travail qui n'a pas été publié, voir Gilmour, supra;

"A draft Working Paper on the defence of de minimis non curat lex is almost finished."
(p. 14)
------------------
"La version provisoire du document de travail portant sur le moyen de défense de minimis non curat lex est presque terminée."
(p. 16)

LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF SASKATCHEWAN, Proposals for Defences to Provincial Offences: Report to the Minister of Justice, Saskatoon: Law Reform Commission of Saskatchewan, December 1986, 18 p., see "Common Law Defences" at pp. 13-15;

"Other defences such as entrapment or de minimis non curat lex do not necessarily justify or excuse the accused's behaviour, but if the defence is accepted a conviction will not result." (p. 14)

LEGAL AID ONTARIO / AIDE JURIDIQUE ONTARIO -- LAO  LAW, Criminal Law Memoranda, Toronto, catalogue current as of February 1, 2006; see http://www.lss.bc.ca/__shared/assets/LAOlawindex1225.pdf  and http://www.legalaid.on.ca/ (both sites accessed on 24 February 2006);
- D16-1 De Minimis Non Curat Lex (4 Aug 2005; 27 pages);

LIBMAN, Rick,  1956-,  Libman on regulatory offences in Canada, Saltspring Island, BC : Earlscourt Legal Press, c2002-, 1 v. (loose-leaf), see section 8.14,  "De Minimis", ISBN: 0968233864; copy at the Library of the Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa, KF 1292 A6 L53 2002;
 

MacFARLANE, B.A. (Bruce A.), "Narcotic Prosecutions and the Defence of De Minimis Non Curat Lex", (1974-75) 17 The Criminal Law Quarterly 98-114;
 

MacFARLANE, Bruce A., Chantal Proulx and Robert Frater, 1959-, Drug Offences in Canada, 3rd ed., Aurora (Ontario): Canada Law Book, 1996-, see Chapter 23, "De Minimis Non Curat Lex", approx. 18 p., ISBN: 0888041861, looseleaf; copy at the library of the Supreme Court of Canada, KF 3890 M32 1996;
 

McGILLIVRAY, Anne, "Reconciling the Defences: A Response to the White Paper", [Ottawa]: The Department of Justice Canada, Law Reform Division, 1994, 14 p., see "Offence beneath the notice of law [de minimis]" at pp. 9-10; copy available at the National Library, Ottawa; available at http://web.archive.org/web/20001001083403/http://129.128.19.162/docs/recondoj.html  and at my Digital Library; (accessed on 8 July 2008); also published in French / aussi publié en français: "L'harmonisation des moyens de défense une réponse au livre blanc, 24 p., voir "Infraction dont le droit n'a cure [règle de minimis]¸" aux pp. 16-17; copie disponible à la Bibliothèque nationale du Canada, Ottawa et à ma Bibliothèque numérique;
  

MEWETT, Allan W., 1930-, and Morris Manning,  Mewett & Manning on Criminal Law, 3rd ed, Toronto: Butterworths, 1994, lxiv, 959 p., see "De minimis non curat lex" at pp. 543-552, ISBN: 0409903752 (bound) and 0433396458 (pbk.);
 

NOVA SCOTIA, Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution, Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution, Findings and Recommendations 1989, vol. 1: Findings and Recommendations, [Halifax, N.S.] : The Commission, 1989, xiv, 15-413 p., see Recommendation 38, at pp. 236-237,  ISBN: 0888711093 (Chairman: Chief Justice T. Alexander Hickman);

"Recommendation 38

We recommend that: ...

(b) the factors which migh arise for a consideration in determining whether the public
     interest requires a prosecution, include:

(i) the trivality of the alleged offence or that it is of a 'technical' nature only; ...

(iv) the degree of culpability of the alleged offender (particularly in relation to other alleged parties to the offence)" (p. 236)

Ontario Court of Appeal

R. v. Carson, (2004) 185 C.C.C. (3d) 541, 185 O.A.C. 298 (Ont. C.A), leave to appeal refused (2005) 337 N.R. 197; available at http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2004/april/carsonC39313.pdf

R. v. Kubassek, (2004) 25 C.R. (6th) 340, 188 C.C.C. (3d) 307 (Ont. C.A.); available at http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2004/april/carsonC39313.pdf

PIETTE, Jean et Isabelle Fournier, "Le développement des moyens de défense en droit pénal de l'environnement", dans Développements résents en droit de l'environnement, Textes des conférences du colloque tenu le 14 octobre 1994, Éditions Yvon Blais, 1994, v, 411 p., aux pp. 291-306 et voir "La défense de minimis non curat lex", aux pp. 303-306, ISBN: 2890739945 (Formation permanente du Barreau du Québec - Volume 55); copie à l'Université d'Ottawa, FTX General: KEQ 885 .Z85 D476  1994;
 

THE PROVINCIAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN, NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR, "A Response to the Federal Department's Consultation Paper on Reforming the General Part of the Criminal Code" by Martha Muzychka with Peggy Keats, Jennifer Mercer, Lynn Peddle, and Wendy Williams, February 1995 available at  http://www.thezone.net/pacsw/criminal.html (accessed on 3 April 2002);

"Trivial violations
We do not believe the General Part of the Criminal Code should include a defence of de minimis, in which an accused could argue against conviction because the offence is too trivial. There are many questions that need answers: Who will define trivial?  Who will select the criteria used to assess a person's background or to establish the context of the crime?  We also believe that including such a distinction in the law will reinforce negative attitudes towards women's complaints. Because
there is very little understanding of the dynamic of fear in abusive relationships, many judges dismiss certain incidents as trivial."

QUIGLEY, Tim, "Annotation: R. v. Marusiak, (2003) 5 C.R. (6th) 182 (Alberta Court of Queen's Bench)", (2003) 5 Criminal Reports (6th) 183 (1 paragraph);
 

R. c. Dubé, 2001 IIJCan 273 (QC C.Q.); R.E.J.B. 2001-24040, J.C.P.Q. 2001-110 (C.Q.); disponible à  http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccq/2001/2001qccq566.html (site visité le 16 août 2006);

R. v. Freedman, 68 W.C.B. (2nd) 498, 2006 QCCQ 1855 (Martin Vauclair, J.C.Q., 20 February 2006); available at  http://www.jugements.qc.ca/php/decision.php?liste=18334809&doc=435F024744001B0B (accessed on 9 October 2006);

REID, Hubert, 1933-, Dictionnaire de droit québécois et canadien avec table des abbréviations et lexique anglais-français, 2^e édition, Montréal : Wilson &
Lafleur, 2001, xiv, 802 p., ISBN : 2891275462;

"De minimis non curat lex

Maxime latine signifiant « la loi ne se soucie pas d’affaires insignificantes ».  Elle énonce le principe que l’on ne doit pas saisir les tribunaux de de litiges sans importance.

Rem.    On écrit également « de minimis non curat praetor » (le préteur ne se soucie pas d’affaires insignificantes)." (p. 171)

ROY, Simon et Julie Vincent, "La place du concept de minimis non curat lex en droit pénal canadien". (Printemps 2006) 66 Revue du Barreau du Québec 211-245; disponible à  http://www.barreau.qc.ca/fr/publications/revue/2006/Tome66_2006.pdf (site visité le 16 août 2007);

STEWART, Hamish, "Parents, Children, and the Law of Assault",  (2009) 32(1) Dalhousie Law Journal 1-33, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1547490 (accessed on 7 February 2010);

STUART, Don, "Annotation: Brett v. R. (1986) 53 C.R. (3d) 189 (B.C. C.A.)", (1986) 53 Criminal Reports (3d) 189-190;

"For an argument that de minimis principle should be available as a residual power, see Stuart, Canadian Criminal Law (1982), pp. 484-87.  Given the ambivalence shown by our courts, the power should be inserted into the Criminal Code." (pp. 189-190)

___________"Annotation: R. v. Kubassek, (2005) 25 C.R. (6th) 340 (Ont. C.A.)" 340", (2005) 25 Criminal Reports (6th) 341-342;
 

___________Canadian criminal law : a treatise, 4th ed., Scarborough, Ont. : Carswell, 2001, liv, 733 p., ISBN: 0459261703, 0459261118 (pbk.), see "De Minimis Non Curat Lex" at pp. 594-599;  there is now a 5th ed.: Toronto: Thomson/Carswell, 2007, xix, 815 p., ISBN: 978 0779812950;
 

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISIONS / ARRÊTS DE LA COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA
 

• Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 4, decision of 30 January 2004; available in English / disponible en français:  http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/index.html (accessed on 1 February 2004);

"202     The common law concept of de minimis non curat lex was expressed in the English decision of The "Reward" (1818), 2 Dods. 265, 165 E.R. 1482, at p. 1484 in the following manner:

The Court is not bound to a strictness at once harsh and pedantic in the application of statutes. The law permits the qualification implied in the  ancient maxim De minimis non curat lex. -- Where there are irregularities of very slight consequence, it does not intend that the infliction of penalties should be inflexibly severe. If the deviation were a mere trifle, which, if continued in practice, would weigh little or nothing on the public interest, it might     properly be overlooked.

203   Admittedly, the case law on the application of the defence is limited. It may be that the defence of de minimis has not been used widely by  courts because police and prosecutors screen all criminal charges such that only the deserving cases find their way to court. Nonetheless de minimis exists as a common law defence preserved by s. 8(3) of the Code and falls within the courts' discretion (J. Hétu, "Droit judicaire: De minimis non curat praetor: une maxime qui a toute son importance" (1990), 50 R. du B. 1065, at pp. 1065-1076) to apply and develop as it sees fit. In effect, the defence is that there was only a "technical" commission of the actus reus and that "the conduct fell within the words of an offence description but was too
trivial to fall within the range of wrongs which the description was designed to cover" (E. Colvin, Principles of Criminal Law (2nd ed. 1991), at p. 100). The defence of de minimis does not mean that the act is justified; it remains unlawful, but on account of its triviality it goes unpunished (S. A. Strauss, "Book Review of South African Criminal Law and Procedure", by E. M. Burchell, J.S. Wylie and P. M. A. Hunt (1970), 87 So. Afr. L. J. 470, at p. 483).

204   Generally, the justifications for a de minimis excuse are that: (1) it reserves the application of the criminal law to serious misconduct; (2) it protects an accused from the stigma of a criminal conviction and from the imposition of severe penalties for relatively trivial conduct; and (3) it saves courts from being swamped by an enormous number of trivial cases (K. R. Hamilton, "De Minimis Non Curat Lex", December 1991, discussion paper mentioned in the Canadian Bar Association, Criminal Recodification Task Force Report, Principles of Criminal Liability: Proposals for a New General Part of the Criminal Code of Canada, (1992), at p. 189).  In part, the theory is based on a notion that the evil to be prevented by the offence section has  not actually occurred. This is consistent with the dual fundamental principle of criminal justice that there is no culpability for harmless and blameless conduct (see my opinion in R. v. Malmo-Levine, 2003 SCC 74, at paras. 234-35 and 244).

205     In Canadian jurisprudence, the defence of de minimis has been raised in drug cases that involve a tiny quantity of the drug (R. v. Overvold (1972), 9 C.C.C. (2d) 517 (N.W.T. Mag. Ct.), at pp. 519-21; R. v. S. (1974), 17 C.C.C. (2d) 181 (Man. Prov. Ct.), at p. 186; and R. v. McBurney (1974), 15 C.C.C. (2d) 361 (B.C.S.C.), aff'd (1975), 24 C.C.C. (2d) 44 (B.C.C.A.)), in theft cases where the value of the stolen property is very low (R. v. Li (1984), 16 C.C.C. (3d) 382 (Ont. H.C.), at p. 384), or in assault cases where there is extremely minor or no injury (R. v. Lepage (1989), 74 C.R. (3d) 368 (Sask. Q.B.); R. v. Matsuba (1993), 137 A.R. 34 (Prov. Ct.); and in obiter in Kormos, supra); see also: Department of Justice Canada, Reforming  the General Part of the Criminal Code: A Consultation Paper (1994), "Trivial violations", at pp. 24-25). Though the case law is somewhat  unsatisfactory, the defence has succeeded on several occasions (see Stuart, supra, at pp. 594-99) and this Court has expressly left the existence of the defence open (see: R. v. Cuerrier, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 371, at para. 21, and R. v. Hinchey, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1128, at para. 69). In discussing the actus reus of the offence of "fraud on the government" under s. 121(1)(c) of the Code, L'Heureux-Dubé J. in Hinchey, supra, wrote the following, at para. 6    9:

In my view, this interpretation removes the possibility that the section will trap trivial and unintended violations. Nevertheless, assuming that situations could still arise which do not warrant a criminal sanction, there might be another method to avoid entering a conviction: the principle of de  minimis non curat lex, that "the law does not concern itself with trifles". This type of solution to cases where an accused has "technically" violated a Code section has been proposed by the Canadian Bar Association, in Principles of Criminal Liability : Proposals for a New General Part of the Criminal Code of Canada . . . and others: see Professor Stuart, Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise (3rd ed. 1995) at pp. 542-46. I am aware, however, that 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. [Emphasis added.]

206  A statutory formulation of the defence was proposed in the American Law Institute's, Model Penal Code (1985), s. 2.12 under "De Minimis Infractions" (in Stuart, supra, at p. 598). The C.B.A. Task Force Report reviewed the uncertain state of the law and recommended codification of a power to stay for trivial violations (see Stuart, supra, at p. 598). A codification of the defence may cure judicial reluctance to rely on de minimis; however, the common law defence of de minimis, as preserved under s. 8(3) of the Code, is sufficient to prevent parents and others from being exposed to harsh criminal sanctions for trivial infractions.

207   I am of the view that an appropriate expansion in the use of the de minimis defence -- not unlike the development of the doctrine of abuse of process -- would assist in ensuring that mere technical violations of the assault provisions of the Code that ought not to attract criminal sanctions are stayed. In this way, judicial resources are not wasted, and unwanted intrusions of the criminal law in the family context, which may be harmful to children, are avoided. Therefore, if s. 43 were to be struck down, and absent Parliament's re-enactment of a provision compatible with the constitutional rights of children, parents would be no more at risk of being dragged into court for a "pat on the bum" than they currently are for "tasting" a single grape in the supermarket." (Per Arbour J. (dissenting))

•   R. v. Cuerrier, [1998] 2 Canada Supreme Court Reports 371-441;
•   R. c. Cuerrier, [1998] 2 Recueil des arrêts de la Cour suprême du Camada 371-441;

"The very notion of implied consent to touching that is inherent in the social occasion, and indeed, inherent in so many aspects of day to day life, is based on an understanding of social realities and a need for tolerance of a reasonable degree of incidental and trivial contact. Whether or not a man is wearing a false moustache or a woman, alluring make-up, it is inconceivable that the Crown, were it foolish enough to prosecute a case of assault by handshake or social buss, would be capable of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt both that a complainant only consented to the physical contact by reason of the deception, and that the deception was employed with the knowledge and intention of inducing the submission of the complainant. In addition, the principle of de minimis non curat lex, that "the law does not concern itself
with trifles" might apply in such a case: see R. v. Hinchey, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1128, at para. 69, per L'Heureux-Dubé J." (Judge L'Heureux-Dubé, pp. 390-391, paragraph 20)
-----------------
"La notion même du consentement implicite à un attouchement, qui est inhérente à la rencontre sociale et, en fait, à de si
nombreux aspects de la vie quotidienne, repose sur la compréhension des réalités sociales et la nécessité de tolérer un degré raisonnable de contacts fortuits et anodins. Qu'un homme porte ou non une fausse moustache ou une femme, un maquillage attrayant, il est inconcevable que le ministère public, fût-il assez insensé pour intenter des poursuites pour voies de fait fondées sur une poignée de main ou une bise, puisse établir hors de tout doute raisonnable à la fois qu'un plaignant n'a consenti au contact physique que sous l'effet de la tromperie, et que l'auteur de la tromperie l'a utilisée sciemment dans le but d'amener le plaignant à se soumettre. En outre, le principe de minimis non curat lex, selon lequel «la loi ne s'occupe pas de choses insignifiantes», pourrait s'appliquer dans un tel cas: voir R. c. Hinchey, [1996] 3 R.C.S. 1128, au par. 69, le juge L'Heureux-Dubé."  (Juge L'Heureux-Dubé, pp. 390-391, paragraphe 20)

•  R. v. Hinchey, [1996] 3 Canada Supreme Court Reports 1128-1196;
•  R. c. Hinchey, [1996] 3 Recueil des arrêt de la Cour suprême du Canada 1128-1196;

"In my view, this interpretation removes the possibility that the section will trap trivial and unintended violations. Nevertheless, assuming that situations could still arise which do not warrant a criminal sanction, there might be another method to avoid entering a conviction: the principle of de minimis non curat lex, that "the law does not concern itself with trifles". This type of solution to cases where an accused has "technically" violated a Code section has been proposed by the Canadian Bar Association, in Principles of Criminal Liability: Proposals for a New General Part of the Criminal Code of Canada (1992), and others: see Professor Stuart, Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise (3rd ed. 1995) at pp. 542-46. I am aware, however, that 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." (Judge L'Heureux-Dubé, p. 1165, paragraph 68)
--------------------------
"Cette interprétation enlève, selon moi, toute possibilité que l'alinéa vise des violations involontaires et minimes. Néanmoins, en supposant qu'il puisse y avoir encore des cas qui ne justifient pas une sanction pénale, il y a peut-être une autre méthode permettant d'éviter qu'une déclaration de culpabilité soit prononcée: le principe de minimis non curat lex, soit que «la loi ne s'occupe pas de choses insignifiantes». Cette solution pour les cas où un accusé a, «strictement parlant», violé un article a été proposée par l'Association du Barreau canadien, dans Principes de responsabilité pénale: Proposition de nouvelles dispositions géénéral du Code criminel du Canada (1992), et par d'autres : voir le professeur Stuart, Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise (3e éd. 1995), aux pp. 542 à 546. Je sais, toutefois, que notre Cour ne s'est pas encore prononcée sur l'application éventuelle de ce principe comme moyen de défense permettant de repousser la responsabilité criminelle, et que cette question fait l'objet de certains débats devant les instances inférieures. Comme il n'est pas strictement nécessaire de trancher cette question pour résoudre l'affaire dont nous sommes saisis, il y a lieu de laisser la question en suspens." (Juge L'Heureux-Dubé, p. 1165, paragraphe 68)

• R. v. Smithers, [1978] 1 Canada Supreme Court Reports 506, at p. 519;
• R. c. Smithers, [1978] 1 Recueil des arrêt de la Cour suprême du Canada 506, at  p. 519;
 

[Home -- Accueil]
[Main Page -- Criminal Law / Page principale -- droit pénal]