Skip to content

Popcorn dispute in Sechelt results in probation

A dispute over popcorn that occurred in Sechelt on Nov. 28, 2021 resulted in a 64 year old male from that community pleading guilty to a reduced charge of assault in Sechelt Provincial Court on April 11.
sechelt-court-house
Hon. Judge Steven Merrick imposed a sentence of two years probation and issued the guilty party a no contact order with regard to the complainant. 

A dispute over popcorn that occurred in Sechelt on Nov. 28, 2021 resulted in a 64-year-old male from that community pleading guilty to a reduced charge of assault in Sechelt Provincial Court on April 11.

Hon. Judge Steven Merrick imposed a sentence of two years probation and issued the guilty party a no contact order with regard to the complainant. 

Merrick stated that the accused had no previous record of violent offences and was of “good character." The accused, in addressing the court, advised that he had no interest in further contact with the claimant. 

Merrick ordered a ban on publication of the name or information that could identify the claimant.

The charges resulted from an incident that occurred at the accused’s home while the claimant, who resided outside of Canada, had been visiting for several days.  Defence counsel Sandi Janicki stated “the visit did not go well” as the expectations of the host and the guest about how their time together would be spent differed. She said “with tensions rising” between the parties, a disagreement involving popcorn ensued and the accused admitted that he struck the complainant, who then left the residence, reported the incident to the RCMP and returned to Vancouver to access a flight back to their home. 

The claimant filed a victim impact statement and requested $8,250 in restitution for expenses related to time taken off work for the visit and for a medical situation that he claimed resulted from the altercation, as well as the costs of travel, accommodations and food. 

Janicki called the request “absurd," outlining that the claimant had planned and paid for the travel for the visit and that no injuries were detected when the claimant was examined upon making the report to the RCMP. 

Merrick declined to order that restitution be paid to the complainant and he also did not impose a victim surcharge in his sentencing.