No Language, No Trial: Alberta Court Halts Sex-Crime Prosecution of Deaf Man
Charged in 2021 with eight sexual offences involving three complainants, Kendall Longclaws had no understanding of the charges, the courtroom, or the justice system itself.
Author: Alex Dhaliwal
Alberta’s top court has slammed the brakes on a sexual assault case, ruling that a deaf man who never acquired a language cannot constitutionally stand trial because he’s incapable of participating in his own defence.
The explosive decision leaves prosecutors with no legal path to try the case—and shines a harsh spotlight on a glaring hole in Canada’s justice system.
Most Albertans will never cross paths with Kendall Longclaws. Now in his 30s, he still lives with his parents on the isolated farm where he was raised with seven siblings, rarely leaving the property without them.
Deaf from birth, he cannot read, use a phone, understand a calendar, or communicate beyond a few gestures, grunts, the single spoken word “brother,” and writing his own name. He was never taught a language, according to the National Post.
Schooling failed. Unable to understand courts or the justice system, Longclaws had no idea what was happening when he was charged in 2021 with eight sexual offences involving three complainants.
The first two complainants were allegedly assaulted between 2012 and 2016, the third in 2021. Little is known about them. What is known is that their allegations will not be heard at trial.
The first attempt to prosecute Longclaws collapsed in 2025, when King’s Bench Justice Debra Yungwirth stayed the charges before trial. She ruled there was no constitutional way to proceed because, lacking any language, he could not be provided with a meaningful interpretation of the proceedings.
The Crown sought a fitness assessment that could have led to Longclaws’ detention in a psychiatric hospital. Yungwirth refused, ruling that his inability to communicate made any meaningful assessment impossible and that continuing the prosecution would prejudice “the integrity of the justice system.”
Yungwirth acknowledged that the stay denied the complainants their day in court, but concluded there was “simply no other remedy available.” Critics say the ruling effectively prioritized Longclaws’ Charter rights over the victims’ pursuit of justice and the public’s interest in safety.
Yungwirth’s ruling was among the year’s most controversial judicial decisions. Critics argued it left Longclaws beyond the reach of the criminal courts while foreclosing any avenue to remove him from society.
Any hope the appeal court would reverse course vanished Tuesday, when the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the decision.
The appeal court largely agreed with Yungwirth. It rejected the Crown’s argument that Longclaws required a mental health assessment for “language deprivation syndrome,” finding the evidence insufficient, and did not engage with the Crown’s argument that the public interest favoured a trial given the nature of the allegations.
The victims’ last hope now lies with the Supreme Court of Canada. Unless it overturns the ruling, Longclaws will remain beyond the reach of criminal prosecution.
Critics warn the decision could invite similar arguments from other defendants with profound communication impairments, in Alberta and beyond.