Ontario criminal | Abduction
Child under 14 years
Accused not permitted to introduce evidence regarding validity of apprehension warrant
It was alleged that accused, without lawful authority, took child out of possession of and against will of children’s aid society, guardian of child, contrary to s. 280 of Criminal Code. Accused were charged with abducting person under age of 16. Accused brought application to be permitted to ask questions and introduce evidence regarding validity of apprehension warrant, to argue that apprehension warrant should be found invalid, and to argue that, if apprehension warrant was found invalid, accused were lawfully entitled to take child. Application dismissed. Child and Family Services Act (Ont.) provided adequate remedial mechanism to party seeking to “undo” ongoing effects of apprehension warrant that was sufficient to validate society’s demand for interim compliance with such judicial order to promote and ensure rule of law. There was no basis for relaxing rule barring collateral attacks on such judicial orders. Doing so in circumstances of this case would be destructive of rule of law insofar as it would jeopardize orderly and functioning administration of justice in relation to child protection matters and bring that system of justice into disrepute.
R. v. Plumstead (Feb. 19, 2016, Ont. S.C.J., I.F. Leach J., 15-552) 128 W.C.B. (2d) 311.
Accused not permitted to introduce evidence regarding validity of apprehension warrant
It was alleged that accused, without lawful authority, took child out of possession of and against will of children’s aid society, guardian of child, contrary to s. 280 of Criminal Code. Accused were charged with abducting person under age of 16. Accused brought application to be permitted to ask questions and introduce evidence regarding validity of apprehension warrant, to argue that apprehension warrant should be found invalid, and to argue that, if apprehension warrant was found invalid, accused were lawfully entitled to take child. Application dismissed. Child and Family Services Act (Ont.) provided adequate remedial mechanism to party seeking to “undo” ongoing effects of apprehension warrant that was sufficient to validate society’s demand for interim compliance with such judicial order to promote and ensure rule of law. There was no basis for relaxing rule barring collateral attacks on such judicial orders. Doing so in circumstances of this case would be destructive of rule of law insofar as it would jeopardize orderly and functioning administration of justice in relation to child protection matters and bring that system of justice into disrepute.
R. v. Plumstead (Feb. 19, 2016, Ont. S.C.J., I.F. Leach J., 15-552) 128 W.C.B. (2d) 311.
