Editor’s note: This article has been updated after The Reporter received an audio recording of the Dec. 23 proceedings in Antigonish Provincial Court from Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Services.
ANTIGONISH: A resident of Port Hawkesbury who was facing sexual charges involving a female youth was found not guilty.
In Antigonish Provincial Court on Dec. 23, Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Services (PPS) confirmed that 46-year-old Jason Frank Seymour was acquitted by Judge Nicole Rovers of two charges of sexual assault, two charges of sexual interference, and one count of sexual exploitation.
Because Seymour’s accuser was under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged incidents, she cannot be named under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The PPS said the alleged offences took place between May 17, 2021 and Sept. 1, 2021 in Port Hawkesbury.
“I have serious concerns about the credibility and reliability of the evidence of (the accuser). The evidence of Mr. Seymour was both reliable and credible and leaves me with reasonable doubt,” Rovers stated. “The court is left to determine that in the case of Mr. Seymour. The Crown has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt …”
Before declaring Seymour not guilty on all counts, Rovers noted that “… The court in delivering this decision is not relying on antiquated notions of how and when sexual assaults occur. The allegations of sexual assault described in the direct evidence of this matter could absolutely occur in the presence of others; they could absolutely occur when cameras were surveilling.”
According to Rovers, the Crown submitted that Seymour should have been convicted of a single count of sexual exploitation and one count of sexual assault, “and the rest could be judicially stayed.”
Rovers said the accuser told the court she was there “to get justice and to tell her story.”
In her verdict, Rovers said she did not consider testimony from two young women who rebutted claims by the accuser that they were sexually assaulted by Seymour.
“The evidence was elicited by the defence, redirected, and cross-examined by the Crown,” said Rovers. “… This evidence is not admissible as evidence of bad character of Mr. Seymour.
“I find this evidence is a distraction from the facts of the offences and offers nothing of value in the search for truth in this matter.”
Rovers did consider that after leaving her place of work where the incidents were alleged to have taken place, the accuser reapplied for positions at the same business.
“I accept as evidence that in September and January (the accused)’s potential rehiring was considered,” the judge said. “That could only have occurred as a result of a reapplication by (the accuser) given the evidence of how former colleagues considered her rehiring.”
Rovers said this took place despite the fact that the accuser claimed to have a “well developed fear” of Seymour.
“It is relevant to the issue of the fear (the accused) expressed at seeing Mr. Seymour,” said the judge. “That she would not remember how she came to reapply, on two occasions, to that same place of employment; no evidence has been presented to assist me in understanding how such a decision would not be a memorable one.”
In assessing the credibility and reliability of the accuser, the judge said she did not provide consistent and accurate evidence in her testimony.
“She did not, in her direct evidence at trial, provide significant details about the specific occurrences,” said Rovers. “None of this was described in her direct evidence but was accepted by her as something she had said and had occurred in her cross-examination. There appeared to be discrepancies between the evidence at trial and some information that was provided at a prior date and time.”
Rovers said the language used by the accuser was inconsistent.
“She did not describe the incidents in a detailed way,” the judge noted. “The specific details of the how, when, and where, and with what were not elaborated on.”
Pointing to concerns with the reliability of the evidence, the judge found there were discrepancies between the testimony of the accuser and the facts she confirmed during cross examination.
“These exchanges are very difficult for the court to reconcile,” said the judge. “After reviewing all of the admissible evidence in this matter, I have concerns about the reliability and credibility of the complainant.”
As far as Seymour, the judge determined his testimony was reliable and credible, even matching with some of the information provided by his accuser.
“There (were) no observable issues with his ability to recall what he observed. There (were) no noted issues with his ability to communicate what he observed. Mr. Seymour’s evidence is compatible with other defence witnesses,” she noted.
Rovers said Seymour’s testimony did not change.
“Mr. Seymour’s evidence was consistent between direct and cross examination,” she said. “I have reviewed that his reliability and credibility were untouched by cross-examination.”
After noting that Seymour was “in a position of authority” over the accused, Rovers said portions of his evidence were “troubling to the court.”
“The hug, and the text message, and the repeated use of the word colleague,” stated the judge. “To describe a teenage part-time produce clerk as being a colleague to a manager suggests that a child in those circumstances has equal work status to the manager, and this is simply not the case.”
Cpl. Chris Marshall explained that on Jan. 23, 2022 Port Hawkesbury RCMP received a complaint “alleging that a man had sexually assaulted a female youth.”
Marshall said police gathered information, and on Feb. 14, they arrested Seymour, who was later released from custody on conditions.
On April 11, during a scheduled election and plea, the PPS confirmed that Seymour’s “defence withdrew” and his representation changed from Legal Aid’s Zachary MacMillian to Halifax-based lawyer Allan MacDonald, which was granted by Judge Laurel Halfpenny-MacQuarrie.
Seymour stood trial on Oct. 25, Nov. 2, and Nov. 15, PPS added.