Can a trial judge hear and dispose of a motion to quash the indictment on the grounds of constitutional invalidity?

The Court at paragraph 16 says: There is no question, therefore, that a trial judge has jurisdiction to hear and dispose of a motion to quash the indictment on the grounds of constitutional invalidity. Whether he or she is bound to do so or whether as a matter of practice should do so is more problematic ... (Then at paragraph 17) ... The decision whether to rule on the application or reserve until the end of the case is a discretionary one to be exercised having regard to two policy considerations. The first is that criminal proceedings should not be fragmented by interlocutory proceedings which take on a life of their own. This policy is the basis of the rule against interlocutory appeals in criminal matters. See Mills v. The Queen, 1986 CanLII 17 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863. The second, which relates to constitutional challenges discourages adjudication of constitutional issues without a factual foundation ... Both of these policies favour disposition of applications at the end of the case. In exercising the discretion to which I have referred the trial judge should not depart from these policies unless there is strong reason for doing so.