Alberta Court of Appeal upholds stay as sexual assault charges thrown out against non‑verbal Maskwacis man
Court of Appeal upholds stay after judge ruled sexual assault charges thrown out for Maskwacis man who is deaf, non‑verbal and cannot read or write.
Appeal court affirms judge’s decision to stay proceedings
A three‑judge panel of the Alberta Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court ruling that stayed prosecution of Kendal Longclaws, finding that continuing the case would breach his Charter right to a fair trial.
The decision affirms Justice Debra Yungwirth’s earlier conclusion that Mr. Longclaws, who is deaf and does not use a recognized sign language, cannot meaningfully participate in proceedings that require interpretation.
The appeal judgment notes the practical impossibility of providing the kind of interpretation necessary for a fair process and agrees a stay was the appropriate remedy in the circumstances.
Charges and alleged timelines
Longclaws, 34, faced eight charges in total: six counts of sexual interference and two counts of sexual assault linked to three separate complainants.
According to court records, allegations involving two complainants are said to have occurred between Feb. 1, 2012, and Sept. 7, 2016, while allegations involving a third complainant are dated to March 1–30, 2021.
The appeal panel described these as serious allegations of sexual violence against children, underscoring the gravity of the facts at issue even as it confirmed the stay.
Communication barriers central to fairness concerns
The court’s decision emphasized Mr. Longclaws’ profound communication limitations, noting he cannot speak, read or write and does not use a standardized sign language.
He communicates with family members using improvised gestures, facial expressions and simple vocalizations, a method the courts found insufficient for participation in legal proceedings.
That incapacity to receive and understand legal interpretation was central to the finding that a fair trial could not be guaranteed.
Crown sought fitness assessment; judges deferred to trial judge
Crown counsel, Matthew Griener, argued that the trial judge should have ordered a fitness-to-stand-trial assessment before granting a stay, suggesting the accused’s communication difficulties might reflect an underlying mental disorder.
The defence contended there was no evidence of a mental disorder and that Mr. Longclaws could not meaningfully participate in any fitness evaluation because of his communication barriers.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge’s factual finding—made at the Wetaskiwin Court of King’s Bench—that no evidence supported a mental illness or psychiatric disorder as defined by criminal law, and therefore declined to overturn the decision.
Legal standards and appellate deference explained
The appeal panel applied standard principles of appellate review, stating that a trial judge’s decision will stand unless there is a legal error, a reviewable factual mistake, or a ruling so clearly wrong as to amount to an injustice.
Because the trial judge had considered the available evidence and reached a reasoned conclusion about the absence of mental disorder, the appellate court found no basis to interfere.
Judges also highlighted that a finding of unfitness carries different legal and liberty implications than a stay, which factored into the deference shown to the trial court.
Implications if fitness were found versus staying charges
The Court of Appeal underscored an important distinction: a finding that an accused is unfit to stand trial would shift the matter out of the criminal process and into the administrative jurisdiction of the Alberta Review Board.
That board has statutory authority to order hospital detention, which could, in some cases, result in prolonged confinement without a criminal conviction.
The panel observed that finding unfitness in a case where communication barriers, rather than treatable psychiatric illness, are decisive could expose an accused to significant deprivations of liberty without ever being tried or convicted.
The stay now leaves the criminal charges inactive, and it closes the path to trial unless circumstances change materially and new evidence or methods permit meaningful participation by the accused.
The decision highlights the courts’ responsibility to ensure procedural fairness even in cases involving serious allegations, and it underscores the difficult balance between protecting complainants and safeguarding the constitutional rights of the accused.
