Judge declares mistrial in Yellowknife sexual assault case

An NWT judge has granted a man convicted of sexual assault a mistrial due to ineffective counsel.

Judge Robert Gorin convicted Oliver Weyallon, 29, of one count of sexual assault following trial in July 2025.

Weyallon subsequently applied for a mistrial, arguing that his defence lawyer during trial – Baljindar Rattan – had provided ineffective counsel amounting to a miscarriage of justice.

Crown prosecutor Jean-Benoit Deschamps, however, argued that Rattan was “diligent” in her representation of Weyallon. He said the issues raised by Weyallon were minor and would not have affected the outcome of his trial. `

In a ruling published earlier this month, Judge Gorin ultimately found that Rattan had failed to ask Weyallon if he wanted to switch from a judge-alone trial in Territorial Court to a jury trial in Supreme Court after the charges against him changed.

He noted the Charter guarantees accused people the right to a jury trial in cases where the maximum punishment is five years’ imprisonment or more.

“In order to determine if they wish to exercise that right, the accused must be fully informed of all the factors at play. They need to know the jeopardy they face, the defences available to them, and whether a preliminary inquiry would be available if they elected for a jury,” Gorin said, finding that Weyallon had not been fully informed of all those factors.

Gorin said that had compromised the trial’s fairness and was sufficient to justify a mistrial.

He noted Weyallon’s “own neglect may well have significantly contributed to the problem,” as he was not responsive to Rattan’s attempts to communicate with him and showed up late to a meeting ahead of trial. The judge concluded, however, that Rattan “should have done more.”

Confusion over age of complainant

Weyallon was charged in July 2025 with sexually assaulting a girl in Yellowknife shortly after her 16th birthday in January 2024.

He was subsequently charged with two more counts of sexually assaulting the girl in December 2023, when she would have been 15 years old. The Crown later stayed one of those charges.

The complainant’s age in December 2023 meant that, under Canadian law, she would not have been able to consent to sexual activity with Weyallon, who was then 27.

It also meant Weyallon faced a maximum prison term of 14 years if convicted, rather than 10 years. He therefore had the right to a preliminary inquiry – a hearing held to determine if the Crown has enough evidence to proceed to trial.

Following trial, Gorin found the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that sexual contact between Weyallon and the girl had taken place in December 2023 rather than January 2024. He also found Weyallon had not taken reasonable steps to determine her age.

In his decision on the mistrial application, Gorin said at the time the charges against Weyallon were updated, neither Deschamps nor Rattan were aware the complainant was 15 rather than 16 in December 2023.

Gorin said it was only until two months before trial that Deschamps and Rattan both became aware of her age at the time.

Lack of notes

Weyallon’s new lawyer, Robert LaValley, argued that Rattan had failed to obtain instructions from Weyallon regarding possible re-election to Supreme Court based on that new information.

He further alleged Rattan had failed to meaningfully cross-examine the complainant, adequately prepare Weyallon for trial or address a potential alibi.

Deschamps disputed all of those claims and said Weyallon’s evidence was “deceiving and misleading.”

He said Weyallon had not been diligent in engaging with Rattan and was now trying to put the blame on her for his “cavalier attitude.”

In ruling in Weyallon’s favour on the matter of re-election, Gorin said it was “very unfortunate” that Rattan had not kept notes on her meetings and discussions with Weyallon. He said much of her evidence was about what she “would have” done based on her normal practice, to which he gave little weight in his decision.

“I am disturbed by fomer counsel’s lack of adequate note taking when interacting with Mr Weyallon,” he said.

Finding that Rattan had failed to fully inform Weyallon regarding re-election, Gorin did not make a ruling on the other allegations of ineffective counsel.

“Certainly, second guessing why a lawyer did or did not do certain things during a trial, such as cross examining a witness on prior inconsistencies, can be a problematic exercise. Cross examining on very minor inconsistencies can be pointless and even counterproductive,” he said.

 “Yet given some of the inconsistencies pointed out by Mr LaValley, I am surprised that they were not pursued.”