Law360 Canada ( July 6, 2026, 9:35 AM EDT) -- Appeal by S.C.W. from an order largely dismissing his application under s. 161(3) of the Criminal Code (Code) to vary a sex offender prohibition order. The order was imposed when he was sentenced for sexual interference and making child pornography involving his young stepdaughter. The 20-year order restricted his attendance at places where children might be present, employment or volunteer work involving children, contact or communication with children, and internet use for communicating with children or accessing pornography. After serving his sentence and parole, S.C.W. applied to reduce the duration of the order from 20 years to five years and to remove or further relax the public-place and no-contact conditions. He relied on changed circumstances, including successful completion of programming, compliance in the community, a later diagnosis said to shed light on past behaviour, and physical injuries from a motor vehicle accident that made swimming and greater community access important to his rehabilitation. The Crown argued that s. 161(3) of the Code permitted variation only of conditions, not duration, and that, in any event, S.C.W. continued to pose a risk to adolescent girls such that the order remained necessary. S.C.W. also sought to adduce fresh evidence on appeal concerning his current circumstances and risk of reoffending. The issues were whether the Provincial Court judge had jurisdiction to vary the duration of the order, whether he erred in refusing broader relief, and whether the fresh evidence should be admitted....