The Crown has filed an appeal in a high-profile case involving the death of a nine-year-old girl.

On Sept. 9, 2021, Baeleigh Maurice was walking her scooter along a Saskatoon crosswalk when she was hit and killed by Taylor Kennedys truck.

At the crash scene, Kennedy told officers she vaped marijuana and micro-dosed magic mushrooms the day prior.

Kennedy was charged with impaired driving exceeding the prescribed blood-drug concentration of THC, causing death.

On Dec. 13, Judge Jane Wootten stayed Taylor Kennedys charge of impaired driving, ruling that Kennedy was not tried within a reasonable time.

Matters at Canadian provincial courts must reach a conclusion by 18 months. Wootten determined Kennedys matter took about 24 months.

Woottens decision sparked backlash from the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations (FSIN).

The FSIN pushed for an appeal and called for changes to Canadian laws.

Now, the Crown is appealing on the grounds that the judge made an error in her decision.

At the time of the ruling, defence lawyer Thomas Hynes said he anticipated the prosecution would appeal.

We consider the Crowns appeal to lack merit, Hynes told CTV News in a statement on Tuesday.

Hynes said Woottens decision was entirely appropriate.

During her two-hour decision, Wootten detailed each court date and ruled whether the adjournment could be attributed to the defence.

The total delay in the matter is 899 days, Wootten told the court last month.

She ruled that 158 of those days were caused by the defence — leaving a delay of 741 days, or six months beyond the 18-month criteria.

Hynes believes the delay was longer than six months.

We think that calculation was the most favourable it could be to the Crown, and we will look to persuade the Court of Appeal the trial judge should have found the ceiling was breached by even more than six months, Hynes said.

So that the stay of proceedings was justified however they look at the delay.

Now that a notice of appeal has been filed, the prosecution will have to create a formal written argument, clearly outlining why it believes Woottens decision should be overturned.