E. Van Drunen

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing that the delay in his trial exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The court had to determine whether the delay calculation began on the date of arrest or the date the information was sworn, and whether the 'end of trial' included the time taken to hear the post-verdict s. 11(b) application.

The court held that the delay calculation begins when the information is sworn and ends when the verdict is rendered.

As the total delay was 29 months and 24 days, falling below the 30-month ceiling, and the accused conceded he could not establish unreasonable delay below the ceiling, the application was dismissed.

The accused parents were charged with abducting their child from the care of the Children's Aid Society during a supervised access visit.

Prior to trial, the accused brought an application seeking to challenge the validity of the initial apprehension warrant issued under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court dismissed the application, holding that challenging the warrant at the criminal trial would constitute an impermissible collateral attack on a judicial order.

The court found that the statutory scheme provided an adequate remedial mechanism to challenge the apprehension, and allowing a collateral attack would jeopardize the orderly administration of child protection matters.