Warning: This story contains reference to allegations of sexual violence against minors and self-inflicted injuries that may be disturbing to some readers.
An NWT Supreme Court justice has granted the request of a former Beaufort Delta educator charged with sexual offences to hold a separate trial for an arson charge he is facing.
RCMP in Inuvik said in August 2024 they had arrested and charged Richard McKinnon with multiple sexual offences. At the time, McKinnon was employed as an assistant superintendent at the Beaufort Delta Education Council.
McKinnon is facing two charges of sexual exploitation and two charges of sexual assault for allegedly sexually abusing two teenagers between 2015 and 2021, while he worked as a teacher, principal and sports coach in a small NWT community.
He was also charged with arson in connection with a fire at an apartment building where he was living in August 2024.
Advertisement.
Advertisement.
In a written ruling issued on Thursday, Justice Annie Piché ordered a separate trial on the arson charge. She concluded that McKinnon’s interest in controlling his defence by deciding whether to testify on the two sets of charges outweighed the public’s interest in having a joint trial.
McKinnon told the court he plans to testify on the alleged sexual offences but will likely not testify on the arson charge.
Allegations against McKinnon
According to Piché’s decision, McKinnon sent several text messages to one of the complainants in July and August 2024 acknowledging that the complainant was mad at him, offering a general apology, and asserting that what he had done was not illegal.
McKinnon also told the complainant over text that he would not need his apartment anymore and that an accident would cause his life insurance benefit to triple.
Advertisement.
Advertisement.
RCMP subsequently charged McKinnon with sexual offences related to the complainant’s allegations on August 6.
The following day, emergency services responded to a fire at McKinnon’s apartment building.
In his unit, first respondents found two piles of clothing on fire and located McKinnon in a closet in the bedroom, with life-threatening, self-inflicted stab wounds. McKinnon was medevaced out of the territory for treatment.
A second complainant came forward to police with allegations against McKinnon in October 2024.
RCMP laid additional charges against McKinnon in December 2024 related to those allegations, as well as arson.
Arguments for joint and separate trials
During a hearing in Yellowknife earlier this month, McKinnon’s lawyer, Jessi Casebeer, argued there would be little or no overlap in witnesses if separate trials were ordered on the two sets of charges and that a joint trial would be unnecessarily complex and lengthy.
Casebeer added that forcing McKinnon to testify on the arson charge would affect his ability to control his defence and cause him prejudice.
Crown prosecutor Jared Kelly, however, argued that the text messages McKinnon sent to one of the complainants connect the charges, and there was a low risk of prejudice as McKinnon is not being tried by a jury.
Advertisement.
Advertisement.
He said ordering separate trials could risk inconsistent findings of fact and prevent the Crown from prosecuting the arson charge, result in an overlap of witnesses, and potentially require the Crown to call the complex evidence of experts twice.
Weighing the arguments, Piché found the most important factor was McKinnon’s intention to testify on the sexual offences but not the arson charge.
She noted that the sexual offences are based on the direct evidence of two complainants while the Crown’s evidence on the arson charge is “purely circumstantial.”
“Hindering an accused’s ability to control his own defence and decide whether to testify with respect to each of the counts, on serious criminal charges, such as the ones [McKinnon] faces, is significant,” Piché wrote.
She concluded that ordering separate trials would “not be meaningfully more complex and longer than a joint trial.” She added there would be little to no overlap in witnesses and, if the arson trial proceeded first, there would be no real risk of preventing the Crown from prosecuting the charge.
