R v Merasty

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.