Is there other legal avenues available to address the problems and concerns that gave rise to this prosecution?

[12] Defence counsel submits that the accused’s conduct is not the kind of conduct meant to be proscribed by section 282 of the Criminal Code. He relies on Appeal Justice David Doherty’s comments in The Queen v. McDougall at page 189 [C.C.C.]: Criminal prosecutions cannot become a weapon in the arsenal of parties to acrimonious family disputes. and at page 190 [C.C.C.]: There are other legal avenues available that can address the problems and concerns that gave rise to this prosecution.

[13] Defence counsel disagrees that The Queen v. Chartrand governs the interpretation of the intent required under section 282 as there, section 281 of the Code was in issue and defence counsel urges that this court restrict that case to abduction by a stranger and not apply it to parental abduction.

[14] Crown counsel does rely on The Queen v. Chartrand as governing the issue of intent to deprive, whether that be under sections 281 or 282, and points out that The Queen v. McDougall is distinguishable on its facts and that these sections, except for the status of the offender and the existence of a custody order, are identical in their wording.