C. Smith

The Children's Aid Society apprehended a five-month-old infant from the mother's care and subsequently brought a motion to place the child in the father's care under a supervision order.

Both the mother and the father sought to have the child placed in their respective care.

The court reviewed the mother's history of child protection involvement, intellectual limitations, and failure to follow safety plans, concluding the child could not be safely returned to her.

The court also reviewed the father's history, including recent missed access visits and lack of problem-solving skills, concluding the child could not be adequately protected by a supervision order in his care.

The Society's motion to place the child with the father was dismissed, and the child remained in temporary Society care.

The accused brought a pre‑trial application seeking a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter alleging breach of the right to trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The case involved numerous sexual offences and child pornography charges and required extensive forensic analysis of electronic devices and categorization of thousands of images and videos.

Applying the analytical framework from Morin, the court assessed the overall delay, waiver, reasons for delay, institutional delay, and prejudice to the accused.

While the total delay approached two years, the court found much of the delay attributable to the inherent complexity of the case and investigative requirements, with only a short period attributable to the Crown.

The court concluded there was no significant prejudice and that the delay was not unreasonable in the circumstances.